edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Henare Tau: Maori Trustee Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Maori Trustee Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2767] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I am mindful that the previous speaker in her opening 5-minute speech said that what members say when they are in Opposition is the opposite of what they say when they are in Government. But I am not sure whether she was talking about us or them. 
Opposition members have mentioned that the Maori Trustee will stand alone they have mentioned Wayne Mapp and they have mentioned all those flowery things that could happen to the Maori Trustee. Actually all of those things are happening under this bill. As for the stuff that is not happening—the development stuff that Nanaia Mahuta talked about—I ask Labour members why they did not put it in the bill when they were in Government. Oh that is right—they did not do that. They tried to cleverly siphon off $35 million into some sort of development fund but nobody knew how that development fund was to be worked out. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Will the member take a question? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No I am not a Minister. I should be—but OK that is not for me to say. All of the things the previous speaker talked about—the corporation sole and a stand-alone Maori Trustee—are good excellent ideas. That is why the previous Maori Affairs Committee—chaired I might add by Dave Hereora who did a pretty good job—had already agreed to do all of that. So it should not come as a shock. 
If other things should have been added to Part 1 why did that last Maori Affairs Committee not have those things in front of it? It is because the previous Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia in his wisdom thought otherwise. In his wisdom he brought the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill to this House and to the select committee. We have split that bill in half because there was not too much agreement on its second half but there certainly was on the first half as we see here in Part 1. This bill is about a corporation sole and about making the Maori Trustee more responsible and transparent. It is about making sure there is a reporting regime so that all of the beneficiaries can see what the trustee is up to. 
The bill addresses the termination of the trustee but I bet a year’s salary that if the trustee were terminated one of the assistant trustees or another person—maybe it would be the Chief Executive of Te Puni Kokiri; who knows—would be put in place. There would be a process whereby the office of the Maori Trustee would have a leader for however long. 
So the previous speaker can go on about what should have been in the bill what is in the bill and what is not in the bill but here is the question: if so much is missing from this part of the bill and from the part that was shaved off by the previous Maori Affairs Committee why did the present Opposition not do something about it during its 9 years in Government? This is not a big criticism but it is in response to the previous speaker saying that what members say in Opposition is different from what they say when they are in Government.
Tisch Lindsay: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2740] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: In accordance with the decision of the Business Committee for the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to make his valedictory statement I suspend the Committee of the whole House for the Speaker to resume the Chair. 
Debate suspended.
Worth Richard: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2728] 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Justice and Electoral Committee consider the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill 
 and that the committee finally report to the House on or before 30 March 2010. 
Motion agreed to.
Parker David: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2721] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 As I said last night when this debate started Labour will be supporting the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill at its first reading. The bill in its present form was drafted on behalf of the outgoing Labour Government. 
It concerned us last night when Sandra Goudie stood up and said that the reason for the bill’s extraordinarily long period at a select committee is so that the committee can investigate whether the powers of private investigators and similar positions of responsibility ought to be considerably enlarged. That is something that the previous Labour Government would have opposed. We do not think there is a case for giving powers to arrest or increased investigative snooping powers to private investigators any more than there is a case for giving those powers to lay people. They do not need them. There is no mischief to be overturned by changing the law and overturning the law would erode civil liberties that we ought to guard zealously. 
Private investigators unlike the police can be pursuing functions that are not being done on behalf of all people through the State. The police are obviously prosecuting crime on behalf of all New Zealanders. They are subject to various controls under the Police Act and to political controls through this Parliament and through the ballot box. Private investigators are subject to no such controls. They can pursue private vendettas on behalf of private clients. They can pursue politically motivated actions; the police cannot do that. Although we support the bill we will oppose increases to the powers of private investigators.
Burns Brendon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Burns Brendon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:653;Page:2706] 
11.  
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Has he received the reports he called for from officials on the water-quality standards due on 9 April and what do they say? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 No. 
Brendon Burns 
: When the Minister told this House last month it was ridiculous for local government representatives to be facing major upgrading costs for water supplies was he then aware of communities whose supplies are so poor they have had or have every reason to fear serious outbreaks of water-borne illnesses such as giardia cryptosporidium and E. coli? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: The Government is very aware of the need to ensure good safe drinking-water. The debate has been about the costs and the standards and that is why the report has been called for. 
Brendon Burns 
: What has the Minister of Tourism told the Minister about the impact on the tourism industry if a group of overseas visitors were to suffer illnesses caused by contaminated drinking-water supplies? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: The Minister of Tourism has not raised that with me. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What are the views of iwi relevant to water-quality standards that have emerged from the ongoing dialogue between the Crown and Maori leaders in relation to water management? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I understand that the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Health are engaged in a constructive dialogue with iwi on water management and water-quality standards. The Government recognises that iwi regard water as a taonga with life-giving qualities and a spiritual essence. I am afraid that if the member would like to know more about where those discussions are at he will need to put a question down to my colleague the Hon Nick Smith. 
Brendon Burns 
: I seek leave to table two papers from Otago University that show that New Zealand has some of the highest recorded rates of gut infections caused by cryptosporidium and giardia. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:653;Page:2703] 
9.  
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What is the Government’s response to a recently released Treasury report warning that it will cost between $5.3 billion and $10.4 billion to connect 75 percent of New Zealand homes with ultra-fast broadband given this Government’s election promise to spend $1.5 billion to achieve this goal? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 The report that the member refers to is a report that was written for Treasury not by Treasury—which Treasury assures me is an important distinction. It was written by a consultant Dr Murray Milner and was published on the Ministry of Economic Development website 4 weeks ago. It signals a wide range of deployment costs which vary considerably depending upon the deployment method used the level of take-up the technology chosen the level of consumer expenditure and whether the expenditure is an active or passive-level service. The figures quoted in the member’s question of between $5.3 billion and $10.4 billion are at the extreme end of the range; the report also quotes much lower figures. 
Clare Curran 
: Can the Minister confirm that his Government’s $1.5 billion election promise to deliver fibre-optics to the home does include the cost of actually connecting to the home? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I said to the member there is a wide range of possibilities. It does not necessarily include the cost of connecting 100 percent of homes but with the level of co-investment from the private sector that the Government expects and an appropriate level of use of existing fibre-optic infrastructure we believe we will get most if not all of the way to our goal of providing ultra-fast broadband availability to 75 percent of New Zealand homes. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What has been the reaction from submitters to the Government’s ultra-fast broadband proposal? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Some 105 submissions have now been received. It shows a very positive engagement in the process. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Hot under the collar! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Thank you Darren; sartorial assistance is always appreciated. The New Zealand Regional Fibre Group said that the “Government’s Broadband Investment proposal … will leap frog New Zealand to world class broadband.” InternetNZ said it “supports the broad approach outlined of an open access network providing dark fibre and some wholesale services.” Finally Telecom has stated that the Government has shown a “bold vision” for New Zealand’s broadband future which it supports and shares. 
Clare Curran 
: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealanders may face a personal cost of between $2000 and $3600 per household to connect their homes to the ultra-fast broadband provider to their streets and that this represents another broken promise by the National Government to all New Zealanders? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:653;Page:2702] 
7.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Has he received a request for or offered possible Government assistance to Lane Walker Rudkin; if so when? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has the Minister visited Lane Walker Rudkin in Christchurch since the election; if so when? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister ring the receivers for Lane Walker Rudkin yesterday; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. Like the rest of New Zealand I found out about the receivership on the 6 p.m. news. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of the fact that as the Minister has just informed the House he found out about it on the 6 o’clock news what action did he take between 6 o’clock last night and 2.30 this afternoon? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: A very long list of actions has been taken by the Minister for Economic Development in the time period referred to by the member. People’s jobs are at stake here; it is a serious issue. A pathetic attempt to make some trite politics out of it is not fair to those people. Our understanding is that commercial solutions are being pursued and we watch and await the outcome of those commercial discussions.
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:653;Page:2699] 
4.  
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received regarding extra police for Counties-Manukau? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I have received very good reports. Since National became the Government the number of police in Counties-Manukau has increased by 26 to 780. In addition police numbers in Counties-Manukau are expected to grow by a further 16 constables by 30 June 2009. Overall the police expect to achieve an extra 150 police this year and 150 next year. This boost of 300 new front-line police in Counties-Manukau by the end of 2010 is a key Government policy and I am pleased with progress to date. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Has she received any other reports regarding extra police for Counties-Manukau? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. I am advised that a further 41 recruits destined for Counties-Manukau have just started at the Royal New Zealand Police College and are expected to graduate in August 2009. The police have many recruitment activities under way and are working hard to implement the Government’s policy. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What are the police doing to ensure that the additional police in Counties-Manukau include both new recruits and experienced police officers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The police have planned two intakes at the police college for former police who are rejoining the organisation. These two intakes will result in 40 experienced police officers rejoining the police. Each officer has between 5 and 12 years’ experience as a police officer.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:653;Page:2695] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following an agreement at the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the House to suspend for the dinner break today at the conclusion of the Hon Dr Cullen’s valedictory speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:653;Page:2695] 
Wednesday 29 April 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following an agreement at the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the House to suspend for the dinner break today at the conclusion of the Hon Dr Cullen’s valedictory speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.
Gilmore Aaron: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Gilmore Aaron: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2122] 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2120] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2104] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to.  
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2104] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 E te Waha Korero o te Whare tena koe i tenei po. A kua tu ake e te Whare na runga i te ahuatanga o te taenga mai o te Kingi o te motu a Kingi Tuheitia ki waenganui i a tatau. Ehara i te mea he whanui nga korero engari ko taku he mihi ki a ia he mihi ki te kahui ariki kua tae mai ki roto i te Whare Paremata o te motu. Nau mai nau mai. Tena korua me koutou i hara mai i te po nei. Otira ki a tatau e noho atu nei kua tae mai a Kingi Tuheitia ka mihi ki a ia na runga i te ahuatanga koia tera e noho i runga i te ahurewa tapu o nga matua o nga tupuna. Huri noa i te Whare tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatau. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Thank you Mr Chairman and greetings. To the House I rise to take this brief call to acknowledge King Tuheitia’s presence in our midst and to welcome him on your behalf into Parliament House of the land. Welcome welcome. Greetings to you two and to those of your retinue who came here tonight. To those of us seated about in the Chamber Kingi Tuheitia the reigning monarch of the King Movement and of those who carried that mantel in the past is before us. Greetings to you greetings to you and to us throughout the House 
.]
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2086] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2086] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Robertson Grant: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2131] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Clause 5C looks at the review of by-laws. I think it is important as we go through this bill to reflect again on the process under clause 5 for making these by-laws. Clause 5C states that by-laws will need to be reviewed “no later than 5 years after the date on which the bylaw was made.” The question is whether 5 years will be the right length of time. I come to that question by looking at clause 5(3) because we are talking here about some fundamental issues for the people of Wanganui as to the way these by-laws are made under that clause. The council in making the by-law identifying a gang will have to be satisfied that that gang has certain characteristics such as “(a) a common name or common identifying signs symbols or representations and” that “(b) its members associates or supporters individually or collectively promote encourage or engage in a pattern of criminal activity.” Of course the provision is for the gangs that are not named in the bill already. 
This will be the area where lawyers will have a field day but it is also the area where in a review as called for under clause 5C difficulties will arise. The types of symbols and the types of signs that gangs use will change and evolve quickly under this legislation because gangs will seek to avoid being captured by it. They will change the way they do things. They will change their names. As well they will also change the way they work potentially. That is where clause 5(3)(b) talks about people engaging in “a pattern of criminal activity.” That will change quickly over time in response to this bill. So my feeling is that clause 5C which calls for a review and the reviewing of the by-laws is a good thing in principle. I think it is important to have a review. I think the review could be done as quickly as a year or 2 years— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: 18 months. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —even 18 months later; we could be looking to review this by-law. Inherently clause 5 puts the Wanganui District Council in a very difficult position. Clause 5 asks it to make a range of judgments about the kinds of things that constitute a gang which I think potentially could lead the council into the courts quite quickly as people seek to say that either they are or they are not a gang. We have already discussed this evening that gangs potentially want to be part of this. They want to be recognised; they want to be named in the first part of clause 5— 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2131] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 5B be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 5B agreed to.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2129] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 5A be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 5A agreed to.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2129] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 58; United Future 1. 
Abstentions 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Guy Nathan: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2122] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee for clauses 5A through to 5F to be taken as one debate but voted on clause by clause. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for there to be a single debate but voting clause by clause. Is there any objection to that? Objection is taken so we will deal with this clause by clause.
Barker Rick: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2122] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call clause 5A I remind members that this is the Committee stage; this is not a second or third reading. The Committee is unusually discussing a bill clause by clause so members should focus on the clause in particular and give that their attention. Wide-ranging sweeping statements starting with philosophy the nature of life and global geopolitical issues are outside the scope of this debate.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2122] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 5 agreed to.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2122] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2113] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 4 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2113] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 73 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 43; Progressive 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There is an amendment in the name of Metiria Turei but it is out of order because in substance it is the same as the amendment we have just dealt with.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2113] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 12 in the name of Chester Borrows to clause 4 be agreed to.
Borrows Chester: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2113] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Boscawen John: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Boscawen John: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2111] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 Moana Mackey wants to know whether the ACT Party truly believes that the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill will make a difference. The answer is a categorical yes. If we did not believe that this bill would make a difference we would not be supporting it and I would not be supporting it. 
Moana Mackey talked about ACT as being a libertarian party. She may not realise that there is a party called Libertarianz which stood at the last election. We are not that party; we are the ACT Party. We are a party of choice; we stand for choice. In this case the ACT Party will be supporting a bill put forward by the people of Wanganui. They want this bill and that is one of the reasons we have considered it and will be supporting it. I say to the sponsor Mr Borrows that if 58 members of the National Party vote for this bill it will be passed into law. 
What did Mr Hodgson have to say? He said that the ACT Party is consistent. It might be “consistently wrong” in Mr Hodgson’s words but at least it is consistent. Well I ask Mr Hodgson to cast his mind back to last month. He and his party voted to repeal the Electoral Finance Act a law that was passed by the Labour Government despite widespread opposition from people throughout this country. What did Labour do less than 15 months after it had passed that Act into law? It voted for its repeal. I tell Mr Hodgson that that is a very smart move. He talked about the ACT Party being consistent; well if any party has been inconsistent on an issue in the last 15 months it has been his party. Thank you.
Roy Eric: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2101] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Before I call the next member I will make a little comment. From time to time this House gets a bit tied up over the appropriate name of members. The member in the chair is “Borrows” not “Burrows”. He has not asked me to do this but let us just try to get it right for his sake seeing as he is the member in the chair. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: My apologies. I would be the first to make that point myself. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No that is fine. There is no great angst about this matter.
Henare Tau: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2096] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I do not have too much time for the Mayor of Wanganui but I do have a lot of time for people who try to put things right in their own communities. When we talk about insignia we are talking about images. We are talking about images that intimidate people and that over a period of time have grown to be an image of intimidation. They are not only images of ownership—they mean a lot to the Mongrel Mob and to Black Power and any other gangs—they also have a meaning of intimidation to the general public. That is what the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill tries to stop: the intimidation and the scaring of the community. That is what this bill tries to do. I think that to say it is racist because other gangs may not be captured by this bill is a wee bit wrong. The image of a Hell’s Angels jacket or a Filthy Few jacket—the insignia of those is just as intimidating to some people as that of Black Power or the Mongrel Mob. 
Before we get too hung up about Black Power and the Mongrel Mob I make a humble plea to my cousins and my whanaunga—who undoubtedly are members of both the Mongrel Mob and Black Power—that it is time to give it up. 
Sue Moroney 
: This won’t make them give it up. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: This bill will not make them give it up. A bill outlawing anti-Semitism will not make people give it up. A bill outlawing the Ku Klux Klan will not make the Ku Klux Klan go away. Those hand-wringing liberals over there want just to wave a wand and hope that it will all go away but there are people on this side of the House who live with it every day in their own whanau and in their own communities and have been trying for the last 30 40 or 50 years to do something. 
I remember when the storm troopers were alive and well in South Auckland where I grew up. My uncle Jim who was the last leader of the Maori Battalion and who brought them home could not understand why these young Maori people were wearing Nazi helmets with a swastika on the back. He could not understand it. My plea is that this is just a little step this is just a step by the community of Wanganui to say that it has had enough of being scared in its main street and it has had enough of being intimidated. That is my plea. It might be a humble plea and it might fall on deaf ears but the fact remains that if people do not try then we will not get anywhere. If people do not attempt things in their communities with Parliament’s assistance and Parliament’s say-so then we are all doomed for if we do not allow communities to govern themselves we surely cannot help them to govern themselves. That is all this bill does: it allows Wanganui—or Whanganui as the case may be—to try to deliver something for its own community with the help of the biggest court in the land the House of Representatives.
Vote: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Vote: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2086] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2009.  
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Dyson Ruth: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Dyson Ruth: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2065] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw to your attention a breach of Speakers’ rulings 62/6 63/1 63/2 and 63/3 by Mr Quinn. I ask that you either stop him interjecting or return him to his own seat. 
Paul Quinn 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need to hear any more on this. The member has raised a perfectly proper point. The Speakers’ rulings are very clear that members should not move their seats in order to interject more effectively. The dilemma we have is that often in these debates members move so that they are in this part of the Chamber. I note that quite a few Labour members are not in their normal seats and certainly quite a few National members are not and it would be wrong to say that they could not interject. If I could pick up on the member’s point I think that Mr Quinn should perhaps be a little more reasonable in his interjections. He has a very good baritone voice and it is quite loud. Rather than my banning injecting when a member moves seats I ask him to please be a little more reasonable. I hope that is acceptable to the honourable member.
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:653;Page:2056] 
9.  
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Who appoints members of the Nursing Council and is the Government proposing changes? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes the Government is changing the appointment rules for the Nursing Council so that nurses will be able to elect half of the six health practitioner members of the Nursing Council. Unlike the previous administration which wanted to control and appoint every last position this Government trusts our health professionals. We believe that nurses can make a significant contribution to the regulation of their profession and from later this year we are giving them this opportunity. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: When are those changes expected to take place? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The first elections to the Nursing Council will take place in September this year when two health practitioner members will be elected for a term of 2 years. The next elections will be held in 2011 when three health practitioner members will be elected for a term of 3 years with the elections being run by the Nursing Council.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:653;Page:2054] 
7.  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: How is the Government’s immigration policy responding to the changing demands for labour in the face of current economic conditions? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The first thing to note is that this Government’s priority is jobs for New Zealanders first. We also recognise the importance of an immigration policy that ensures that in the long term this country has the skills and the capital to build a strong economy. Each year New Zealand approves somewhere in the region of 45000 permanent migrants most of whom supply skills that New Zealand is short of on a long-term basis. That will continue. In contrast in situations where more New Zealanders become available temporary visas will not be renewed and new ones will not be issued. In summary we will be retaining permanent migration in areas where there are long-term skill shortages and cutting back on temporary migration in areas where New Zealanders are becoming available. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How does the Government balance adjusting the flow of temporary migrants against continuing to encourage permanent migrants with the skills and capital that the country needs? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: An analogy is to think of temporary migration as a tap the flow of which can be controlled according to New Zealand’s labour needs. In the current economic climate we still need highly skilled permanent migrants but we need fewer foreign workers to come in on temporary visas when there are Kiwis available to fill those positions. Permanent residency programmes encourage people with skills that are in demand worldwide to move to New Zealand and they also encourage people with significant capital to move to this country. Those types of people actually create jobs for all New Zealanders and help to grow the economy. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What concerns does the Minister have regarding the MCK Metals Pacific case in Taranaki? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The concern is that six foreign workers were issued with a variation of conditions to their work permits that allowed them to do work for which New Zealanders were available. Two weeks after the issue of those permits New Zealand workers were made redundant and foreign workers retained their jobs. If the Department of Labour had known that the redundancies were imminent it would not have issued a variation of conditions. I have therefore asked the Department of Labour to investigate whether the revocation of those permits is appropriate.
Goodhew Jo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goodhew Jo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:653;Page:2053] 
5.  
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she seen about job losses in the current economic climate? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 There has been a sharp increase in the rate of unemployment. There are 35283 people currently on the unemployment benefit and the number of people on that benefit is up by 15250 on last year’s number. It is telling us that people need all the support and help they can get via Work and Income. We are seeing people though walk in and walk out with jobs. Of those attending seminars up to 38 percent are walking out with a job instead of having to go on the unemployment benefit. 
Jo Goodhew 
: How many people are being helped by the Government’s ReStart package? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There are 1245 families receiving ReStart. There are worries about job security out there; people are concerned. ReStart inquiries have been up. Around 9300 people have been calling our helplines to get information on ReStart. But there is good news: 10 percent of those people have cancelled their ReStart package because they have found new work. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has the Minister received representations from Jacqui Dean MP to support the 80 workers who face redundancy at Summit Wool Spinners Ltd in Oamaru who went away from a meeting with Ms Dean very disappointed that she had washed her hands of their problem? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Jacqui Dean has made many representations to my office on behalf of her constituents. She is indeed concerned about their well-being and their welfare and she is certainly looking at how they can get assistance through Work and Income. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What other assistance can redundant workers expect the Government to provide? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Work and Income is already working with companies and businesses to help them get through this time. We have beefed up the redundancy support to such a level that staff are walking in and talking to businesses about what is available. The focus is on the transition of getting people from job to job and we are seeing some successes with that.
Young Jonathan: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Young Jonathan: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5086] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 The builders whom I know are generally can-do people—practical efficient and able to string a chalk line at the flick of a wrist and leave a sharp blue line that is as straight as John Key’s promise to superannuitants. Builders often have to make minor variations and they can do that blindfolded yet we have required that they submit new plans fresh specifications and new consents at considerable cost and delay. This amendment bill is all about giving our builders a fair go. The red tape we have talked about has been a noose around their necks mainly because the bureaucrats in our councils who have to give consents have become risk-averse. 
We have some great builders in our country. In fact I have built a few homes in the past but I cannot say that I am a great builder after listening to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove’s comment about many of us here in this Chamber having some experience. On the second house I built I decided I would save some money and I am sure that that will send a shiver down many people’s spines as they think about saving money when building a house. But I was determined to design it and do the plans myself. It took me many many months let me tell members to learn the NZ3604 code. As I learnt that then learnt the art of using software to create a plan I proceeded. After 6 months I applied for my consent and—believe it or not—it was granted. Then I gave it to my builder who is a good friend of mine and excellent. He looked at it and asked where we were going to put the windows—where was the detail? I said that he had them. Unfortunately he had to do some minor variations to the task but in a sense he created a great improvement on what I had presented to him. 
This bill recognises that minor variations take place because we have builders out there who do an excellent job and want to improve buildings at the request of homeowners. Therefore getting rid of the red tape is getting rid of the noose around builders’ necks. Thank you. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill without amendment the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill without amendment the Insolvency Amendment Bill without amendment and the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Goodhew Jo: Insolvency Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Insolvency Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5069] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call on the Insolvency Amendment Bill. This bill has been considered by the Commerce Committee in which I took some time to participate. It is an important bill in that it gives some certainty to a number of issues. 
In Part 1 of the Insolvency Amendment Bill we find that insolvent gifts made within 2 to 5 years may be cancelled if the bankrupt is unable to pay debts. A gift by a bankrupt to another person may be cancelled on the assignee’s initiative if the bankrupt made the gift within the period beginning 2 years immediately before adjudication and ending 5 years immediately before adjudication and if the bankrupt is unable to pay his or her debts. 
Part 1 also covers the limits on recovery by stating that a reasonable person would not have suspected and did not have reasonable grounds for suspecting that in the case of the insolvent gift the bankrupt was or would become unable to pay his or her debts without the aid of the property that the gift is composed of. In terms of Part 1 this bill did not attract a lot of submissions at the select committee. 
I conclude my comments by saying that we look forward to this bill passing through its Committee stage.
Quinn Paul: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5068] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I will take a short call on Part 2 which as the previous two speakers have alluded to deals with consequential amendments and in particular puts in place the limits. But before I do that I will take the opportunity now that I see the Hon Lianne Dalziel walk into the Chamber to produce for her eyes the National Party policy— 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member has effectively just referred to the presence or absence of a member in the Chamber which I do not think is in order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No I will overrule that. Members can refer to the presence of a member which is what the member did. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Thank you for your ruling Mr Chairperson. I will show the Hon Lianne Dalziel the policy statement of 22 October 2008 which she intimated last evening was not the case. 
In respect of dealing with this part I thought there was one aspect that might be worth touching on and bringing to the Committee’s attention. It was raised in the select committee process and it provided some food for thought during that process. It is the matter of whether decisions of the tribunal should be published. In fact in just reviewing my select committee submission notes I see that the Whitireia Community Law Centre proposed that but the Justice and Electoral Committee decided not to pursue it. 
Basically we have stayed within the confines of the intention of the bill which is fundamentally just to raise the levels and really to bring them back in inflation terms to the real values they had when they were set some 10-plus years ago I think. As I say there is not much more to add really. These provisions just tidy up other Acts that refer to the details of these limits. So with those closing remarks I thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Chauvel Charles: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:5068] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 In respect of Part 2 I have a couple of questions that I wonder whether the Minister would consider addressing. I suppose the first arises out of the discussion on Part 1 of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill relating to jurisdictional limits and the way in which the decision was reached to come to the figures of $15000 and $20000. I have looked through the introductory material relating to the bill. I have had a look at the alternative options that are contained in the explanatory note of the bill. I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to get up and tell the Committee briefly how the numbers that have been reached were reached given the overseas experience to which I have referred. I am sure he will be aware in detail of that experience because of the official advice he will have received. 
Paul Quinn 
: A global leader Charles. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: The other question I have for the Minister relates to the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act which are two of the Acts that are being amended by Part 2. Given that I have been accused by Mr Quinn of being a fast follower in some areas but not in others I raise the point that I have put forward for each of the members’ bill ballots that have come up in the last couple of weeks a member’s bill proposal that would deal with fringe or payday lenders within the context of those two Acts. The bill to which I have referred would bring New Zealand into line with many overseas countries that we lag behind at the moment—Mr Quinn will be delighted to know this—in dealing with these lenders. It would allow the imposition of interest rate caps at the behest of the Governor of the Reserve Bank and would also put in place on these lenders some responsible lending requirements that do not exist at the moment. Those measures would be accomplished by the amendment of those two Acts. Given that Part 2 deals with amendments to those Acts it would be interesting to know whether the Minister has a view on the merits of the amendments I am proposing.