edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Dunne Peter: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1389] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 That was the basis on which I sought agreement from whips following a discussion with the Clerk so I am happy to give that confirmation to the member. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The confirmation has been given. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Tisch Lindsay: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1389] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have no difficulty with what is proposed but in terms of the order can we just confirm that we would be using the format for members’ bills—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just want to caution members. I know we have some new members here but during points of order there is to be absolute silence. That member has his first yellow card. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I just seek clarification that we will be using the format for a Labour member’s bill today so Labour would take a 10-minute call National a 10-minute call and then other parties 5 minutes. Am I correct in assuming that?
Dunne Peter: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1389] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With regard to the orders of the day that we are about to move to I have had a discussion with the whips of all parties and therefore on the basis of that discussion seek leave for the speaking times for the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill to be the same as for a members’ order of the day. In other words I seek leave for there to be two 10-minute speeches eight 5-minute speeches and a 5-minute speech in reply. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members have heard that and I have been assured that the member has sought the permission of the whips.
Woolerton R Doug: General Debate 
Woolerton R Doug: General Debate 
[Volume:629;Page:1387] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 We have been back here for not quite 2 weeks into the 2006 year and what have we heard? We have heard Labour and National ripping into each other almost exclusively about campaign spending. That is campaign spending that the smaller parties hardly registered in I have to say. Labour spent $400000 out of the leader’s fund on a pledge card so we are told. Will that party pay it back? No—of course it will not. National received huge support from the Exclusive Brethren. Will the Exclusive Brethren let the National Party go? No they will not. They will keep influencing it and the Labour Party will keep spending. All the while members from both sides of the House speak of their honour and credibility and of the rightness of their cause. We in New Zealand First say that the more they speak of their honour the more we count our spoons. 
The public in this country needs to understand that those two tired old parties will continue in that manner and that what is needed is—and the strength of people’s vote needs to be put into—a strong third party. It will not be until we have critical mass in a third party in this country that we will start to get the transparency that MMP promised—and the action that people demand of a Government. 
While all of the bickering and carrying-on is going on New Zealand First is attending to the job. We understand MMP we understand what is needed and we understand that somebody has to step up to the plate whether it be with the Labour Party or with the National Party. Whichever party gets the most votes on the day has to be supported and we have done that. We have had criticism from left right and all over the place for the role of our Minister of Foreign Affairs but I want to put it on the record that when people pick up today’s paper they can read praise for his stance. They can even read of Murray McCully agreeing with the guy for heaven’s sake. Yet in this House and all around the land some will pretend otherwise. 
This Government will not fall to pieces; it will continue. This is MMP and this is the way it will be in the future. While the bickering is going on New Zealand First will get on with getting the job done not only for its voters but for the public of New Zealand. We will ensure that there are more police on the beat. We will ensure that there is better aged care and that there is a credit card so that our aged people know what they are entitled to and can go out and access health. We will make sure that the Kyoto Protocol does not proceed in the way that was espoused at election time by the Labour Party. We will make sure that more trees are planted in our communities and we will ensure that exporters are encouraged. It is only by those methods that we can get this country out of the doldrums and moving into the position it should be in. 
But the point I want to make and the overriding point that I make is that it is not by supporting the two tired old bickering parties that we will progress this country. Support must be given to third parties and in particular to New Zealand First.
Hartley Ann: General Debate 
Hartley Ann: General Debate 
[Volume:629;Page:1383] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Just before I call the next member I make the point again that the previous speaker brought the Speaker into the debate several times. I remind all members to be aware of that issue.
McCully Murray: General Debate 
McCully Murray: General Debate 
[Volume:629;Page:1375] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on the point of order. I presume this is a new point of order. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: It is a new point of order. You took exception to a statement that was made by my colleague Mr Henare and asked him to leave the Chamber but prior to making the statement you took exception to he raised some concerns about the behaviour of members opposite that as a result of asking him to leave you did not address. In the context of the general caution you gave earlier which some members may doubt that you meant given the standard of enforcement that followed I want you to lay down to the House now very clearly the rules that will apply. Otherwise we will have this confusion whereby members like Mr Henare will be the unwitting victims due to intervening in good faith because they have become so frustrated with the state the House has come into despite the warnings that have been given by the presiding officer. So I want you to be quite clear about the expectations then I want you to follow through with those expectations after you have created them. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member. Firstly I have made the expectations very clear and secondly when Mr Henare made his point others were making points on both sides. I let him continue with his point of order and he added other things to his point of order that were not part of the point of order. That is why I ruled the way I did. I have clarified the matter. We will continue with the general debate.
Peters Winston: General Debate 
Peters Winston: General Debate 
[Volume:629;Page:1375] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I make just two points. A longstanding Standing Order states that when two members rise in the House the senior one will be taken first. Now I am not disputing that beyond my saying it but when I said that the member had not started his point of order. Therefore Mr Brownlee’s complaint is without any validity whatsoever. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I will just rule on this point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] Please be seated. I just remind Mr Brownlee that we do not go over what happened yesterday when we are talking about the context of what is happening now. When that point of order started there was a banter from about three people and Mr Henare entered into it too. That was not his point of order. I let that go on both sides. We will now continue with the debate.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
[Volume:629;Page:1374] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have just asked Mr Henare to leave the Chamber because he was not prepared to withdraw a remark. I appreciate that probably two things have become a little confused here. One is his frustration at the shenanigans that have been going on in the House this afternoon and the apparent overlooking of some of those things for certain personalities in the House and the other is the confusion about that by your actions. You have been in the Chair for only a short time so I will not relitigate that but I am simply trying to put some context around a few things. 
If we take it back to yesterday we know that Mr Mallard jumped up very quickly to suggest that Dr Brash had made a comment after a question had begun when the Speaker had clearly ruled that when questions were being asked no one was to speak. Dr Brash admitted that it was him and he was asked to leave the Chamber. We just saw a situation whereby you called Mr Henare for his point of order and Mr Peters immediately started barking at you that he was senior to Mr Henare. It has been well understood for a long time that when people take points of order they are heard in silence. If this House was to be consistent Mr Peters would be asked to remove himself—just as Mr Henare has been asked to leave—for breaching exactly the protocol that Dr Brash was asked to leave the House for yesterday. I do not want to prolong things but I suggest that what is good for one side should be good for the other.
Peters Winston: General Debate 
Peters Winston: General Debate 
[Volume:629;Page:1374] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I move an extension of time for Don Brash’s speech. We are entitled to hear one today; that is what I came here for. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s not a point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I can seek leave for an extension of time for Dr Brash. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that he cannot do that.
Hartley Ann: General Debate 
Hartley Ann: General Debate 
[Volume:629;Page:1374] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will stand and withdraw that last remark. He knows that if he wants to criticise the Speaker there is a proper way of doing it. He will stand and withdraw that remark. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I will then ask the member to leave the Chamber now. 
The Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber.
Henare Tau: General Debate 
Henare Tau: General Debate 
[Volume:629;Page:1374] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Point of order Tau Henare. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I was first sorry boss. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have called Mr Henare. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes but he is junior. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh I say to Winnie that he does not have to be like that. Madam Assistant Speaker I did not want to interrupt the speaker because I believe it would have been rude but throughout that speech there was a cacophony of noise—not just interruptions or banter but a cacophony of noise including Ministers walking in and out of the House talking and yelling out things to the person who was speaking. 
The other thing is that Peter Brown and one of his colleagues from New Zealand First were standing in the House while a speaker was speaking. Madam Assistant Speaker I just ask you to do your job properly because you are not doing it.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1368] 
11.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What assistance is the Government providing to ensure Stewart Island infrastructure is able to meet the tourism demands expected following the establishment of the Rakiura National Park? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Dr Cullen and I have just signed off on a $2.5 million grant to fund a range of projects on Stewart Island including extending the sewerage scheme and building additional toilets providing new footpaths and providing a new building to house the local museum council staff and a tourism information centre. Those projects will be delivered in partnership with Southland District Council. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What other initiatives is the Department of Conservation undertaking in the Rakiura National Park? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: In the past year alone a number of important projects have been undertaken on the island. They include upgrading the popular Mason Bay huts so that they can accommodate more people improving walking tracks and working with local iwi to eradicate rats from the nearby Titi Islands.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1364] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Because the Minister of Health is not in a position to answer this question I seek leave to have this question held over until tomorrow. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1360] 
5.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Are the police to proceed with plans to destroy more than 800 Remington bolt-action rifles; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes for the reasons given to the member in July 2005 and again in December 2005. 
Ron Mark 
: How can the police legitimately justify the destruction of these sporting rifles therefore denying taxpayers the opportunity to recover approximately $300000 by quoting their “obligations under an international convention to prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms.” when New Zealand has not signed the protocol of which they speak; further New Zealand has not ratified that protocol and will not do so unless the House completely supports the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) which is still before the House? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I should advise the member that the police routinely destroy hundreds of seized weapons every year—some of them quite valuable weapons. The principal reason that the police have independently made that decision is they believe that dumping 800 high-powered weapons on to the market would create risks that it does not wish to incur. Secondly it believes that that decision is consistent with the United Nations recommendations and therefore wants to be in line with what other responsible countries do. 
Ron Mark 
: If the police are so concerned about dumping 800 sporting rifles on the market into the hands of police-authorised licensed firearms dealers and police-authorised duly accredited fit and proper firearms owners what does that now say about the police’s confidence in their own vetting systems and what does it say about the taxpayers’ right to have money recouped back into their coffers which could so easily be done? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just remind members again that questions are for questions not speeches and in the case of supplementary questions the Minister is only obliged to address one of them. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I and I think most members of this House would have every confidence in the police vetting system. It is very good. But that member knows as well as I do that weapons that are acquired legitimately do not always end up in legitimate hands.
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1354] 
2.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received about high achievement by New Zealand school students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Today the New Zealand Qualifications Authority reported the provisional results for scholarship 2005. One thousand eight hundred and five young people achieved 2533 scholarships and between them they will share $3 million over the next 3 years. I would like therefore to congratulate the eight young people who achieved three or more outstanding performances and will receive $10000 a year for the next 3 years the 55 young people receiving either premier or outstanding scholar awards who will receive between $5000 and $10000 a year for 3 years and the 1544 students who will receive a one-off scholarship of $500. These are the best and brightest of young New Zealanders and I am sure the House joins me in wishing them every good fortune for their future studies. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: How has the scholarship in 2005 recognised and rewarded these students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In 2004 following problems with scholarship results two independent advisory groups were established to ensure that the 2005 scholarship results were fair. The Scholarship Reference Group as it was called made 26 recommendations to ensure improvements. I met with the group last week which includes Professors John Hattie and Terry Crooks both assessment experts. They advise me they are very pleased with the improvements that have taken place this year and besides congratulating the students I therefore want to congratulate all those who have worked so hard to give us an outstanding scholarship exam season this year. 
Allan Peachey 
: Why are there an estimated 150000 children currently in the New Zealand schooling system who will move through that system and not learn to read to write or to do mathematics to a level necessary to function effectively as adults in our community? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There are not that number of young people. There are currently 11098 who are on reading-recovery programmes. This Government is committed to all young people being functionally literate in numeracy and in literacy. 
Allan Peachey 
: I seek the leave of the House to table two documents—first the Education Review Office annual report for last year which states that up to 20 percent of New Zealand children are not enjoying success at school and I take that to mean not learning to read and write. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Allan Peachey 
: The second document is a report from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 dated 25 October 2005 in which that 20 percent is translated to 153000 students and which has the Minister acknowledging that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Question No. 2 to Minister 21 February—Acceptability of Questions 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Question No. 2 to Minister 21 February—Acceptability of Questions 
[Volume:629;Page:1351] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I am writing to him on that. I still have that matter under consideration. Hopefully he will get my reply this afternoon or early tomorrow.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Question No. 2 to Minister 21 February—Acceptability of Questions 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Question No. 2 to Minister 21 February—Acceptability of Questions 
[Volume:629;Page:1351] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Thank you for your considered opinion today but I wonder whether you would be prepared to tell us now how you view the question that was ruled out of order yesterday but the previous day had been declared in order because it goes right to the heart of the matter. The question asked whether the Prime Minister was involved.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Sri Lanka—Delegation 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Sri Lanka—Delegation 
[Volume:629;Page:1351] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members my attention has been drawn to the fact that a parliamentary delegation from Sri Lanka has just entered the gallery. I am sure members would like to acknowledge those in the delegation and give them a welcome.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Acceptability of Questions 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Acceptability of Questions 
[Volume:629;Page:1351] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I promised yesterday to reconsider the acceptability of questions to the Prime Minister relating to party matters. It does seem to me reflecting on this that the rules are in principle fairly clear although their application in particular circumstances may give rise to difficulty. 
The basic rule in respect of questions to the Prime Minister and to other Ministers is set out in Standing Order 369. Questions must relate to matters with which the Prime Minister is “officially connected”. The Prime Minister is not subject to the question process as a party leader any more than the Leader of the Opposition and the other party leaders are—see Speaker’s ruling 140/2. Where a question impinges on the Prime Minister’s official responsibilities as Prime Minister it will not be out of order just because there is a party connection but a question that does no more than request party information or seek a party opinion is not in order—see Speaker’s ruling 139/7. 
These are well-established principles and I will endeavour to apply them on a case by case basis.
Points of Order — Question No. 2 to Minister 21 February—Acceptability of Questions 
Points of Order — Question No. 2 to Minister 21 February—Acceptability of Questions 
[Volume:629;Page:1351] 
Points of Order 
Question No. 2 to Minister 21 February—Acceptability of Questions 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Thank you for your considered opinion today but I wonder whether you would be prepared to tell us now how you view the question that was ruled out of order yesterday but the previous day had been declared in order because it goes right to the heart of the matter. The question asked whether the Prime Minister was involved. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I am writing to him on that. I still have that matter under consideration. Hopefully he will get my reply this afternoon or early tomorrow.
Visitors — Sri Lanka—Delegation 
Visitors — Sri Lanka—Delegation 
[Volume:629;Page:1351] 
Visitors 
Sri Lanka—Delegation 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members my attention has been drawn to the fact that a parliamentary delegation from Sri Lanka has just entered the gallery. I am sure members would like to acknowledge those in the delegation and give them a welcome.
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Acceptability of Questions 
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Acceptability of Questions 
[Volume:629;Page:1351] 
Wednesday 22 February 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Oral Answer—Acceptability of Questions 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I promised yesterday to reconsider the acceptability of questions to the Prime Minister relating to party matters. It does seem to me reflecting on this that the rules are in principle fairly clear although their application in particular circumstances may give rise to difficulty. 
The basic rule in respect of questions to the Prime Minister and to other Ministers is set out in Standing Order 369. Questions must relate to matters with which the Prime Minister is “officially connected”. The Prime Minister is not subject to the question process as a party leader any more than the Leader of the Opposition and the other party leaders are—see Speaker’s ruling 140/2. Where a question impinges on the Prime Minister’s official responsibilities as Prime Minister it will not be out of order just because there is a party connection but a question that does no more than request party information or seek a party opinion is not in order—see Speaker’s ruling 139/7. 
These are well-established principles and I will endeavour to apply them on a case by case basis.
Vote: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1473] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Sign Language Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 119 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time.
Hereora Dave: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Second Reading 
Hereora Dave: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1472] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take the opportunity for a short call on this bill given that I am now an ex-member of the Justice and Electoral Committee and I participated in the hearing of submissions at the time when I was a member. I have been keen to keep a close eye on the progress of this bill—hence the reason why I have entered the Chamber—and I am thankful for the opportunity to raise a few issues. 
I would like to commend the Minister for Disability Issues Ruth Dyson for having the foresight to promote the bill and the effects this legislation will have and I thank her for that. 
I recall that when I was talking with submitters about the issues surrounding the setting up of a commission we talked about the comparison with the Maori Language Commission. I see from the bill that the select committee has agreed to the establishment of an advisory group which would have the role of monitoring the effects of the legislation against its stated purposes. It is my view that as time progresses we will need to seriously consider implementing a commission. I know from my experience in promoting Maori language and the reo that that is a good platform to continue to promote the development of any language. 
I also recall learning about sign language through the process of hearing submissions learning that there are subtle differences between the language from country to country and learning that sign language includes signs in respect of the reo. I thought that was pretty amazing. Having the opportunity to learn that was for me unique. 
This bill represents a platform to ensure that the language is protected and promoted. But we must also be conscious that the language must be given an opportunity to survive which is the reason why practising it on its own is not enough. We need to give more consensus to the development of the language. I recall also that part of that development was in relation to ensuring that we had quality interpreters and I do disagree with the ACT member when she stated that the bill will do nothing for the language. I do think that recognising the language in the way that we are doing gives the opportunity to continue to promote it to practise it and to consider further ways to achieve that outcome. 
I commend the bill to the House.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1456] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1445] 
5.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Has he been advised of any proposals for a new national park? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Yes. I am advised that the New Zealand Conservation Authority is not considering any proposals for new national parks. However I understand that Paula Bennett MP proposed in the House last night that the Waitakere Ranges should be designated as a national park. Curiously this is in contrast to suggestions that the Department of Conservation continues to grab more and more land and that it needs to keep its hands off additional land—the first from David Carter and the second from Don Brash. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What additional conservation gains would a national park in the Waitakeres achieve over those conferred by the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: None. A national park proposal covering existing conservation land would not address any of the development issues eroding the margins of this iconic west Auckland landscape. The excellent bill introduced by the member Lynne Pillay will address those issues requiring councils to consider the long-term and cumulative effects of proposals they consider under the Resource Management Act. 
Paula Bennett 
: Does the Minister know of any other mechanism that offers greater protection than a national park; if not why is he not offering this level of protection to the 17000-hectare regional park in the Waitakere Ranges? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member was clearly not listening to my previous answer. Although the conservation land that would be in a national park would have the highest protection it would do nothing for the 10000 hectares of the Waitakere Ranges that are held in private hands. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports to the effect that Paula Bennett cleared that with her leader deputy leader or spokesperson before she made that statement or is it the continuation of a party making policy on the hoof because they are a leaderless rabble? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question—asking for reports if any have been seen—is fine; the second part is not. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No nor of course did we hear from Mr John Key the only National Party electorate member from west Auckland.
Carter David: Members’ Bills 
Carter David: Members’ Bills 
[Volume:629;Page:1437] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. An issue of increasing concern to rural New Zealand is the requirement to microchip farm dogs. I have a member’s bill in the ballot that I hoped would be selected today. It was not so I therefore seek the leave of the House that the Dog Control (Exemption of Farm Dogs) Amendment Bill in my name be introduced and set down on the Order Paper for its first reading. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Television Sets—Gallery 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Television Sets—Gallery 
[Volume:629;Page:1437] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have just conferred with my colleague who is on the House committee. In respect of the television sets that are up in the gallery behind your person and that are turned on I want to know how they came to be authorised knowing full well that unless they are turned off Rodney Hide will look at nothing else. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I sincerely hope that question time will not follow in a like manner when it comes to points of order. That of course was not a point of order.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1437] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Indeed the trout are now rather old trout but they are still being protected.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1437] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication. I wonder if he might tell us whether the Government has any plans to advance the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill which has now been on the Order Paper for some 7 years.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1437] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill and the Securities Legislation Bill and to the first readings of the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters Bill) and the KiwiSaver Bill.
Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1456] 
Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Members’ Bills 
Members’ Bills 
[Volume:629;Page:1437] 
Members’ Bills 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. An issue of increasing concern to rural New Zealand is the requirement to microchip farm dogs. I have a member’s bill in the ballot that I hoped would be selected today. It was not so I therefore seek the leave of the House that the Dog Control (Exemption of Farm Dogs) Amendment Bill in my name be introduced and set down on the Order Paper for its first reading. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Points of Order — Television Sets—Gallery 
Points of Order — Television Sets—Gallery 
[Volume:629;Page:1437] 
Points of Order 
Television Sets—Gallery 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have just conferred with my colleague who is on the House committee. In respect of the television sets that are up in the gallery behind your person and that are turned on I want to know how they came to be authorised knowing full well that unless they are turned off Rodney Hide will look at nothing else. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I sincerely hope that question time will not follow in a like manner when it comes to points of order. That of course was not a point of order.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1437] 
Thursday 23 February 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill and the Securities Legislation Bill and to the first readings of the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters Bill) and the KiwiSaver Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication. I wonder if he might tell us whether the Government has any plans to advance the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill which has now been on the Order Paper for some 7 years. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Indeed the trout are now rather old trout but they are still being protected.
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1565] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave that all the amendments set out on Dr Worth’s Supplementary Order Paper 344 relating to the schedules be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not. The amendments to schedules 1 2 and 4 are out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to schedule 6 be agreed to. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 324 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to schedule 6 be agreed to. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 324 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to schedule 6 the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 324 in his name to schedules 5 and 7 and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to schedules 2 and 6 be agreed to. 
Amendment as amended and amendments agreed to. 
Schedules 1 to 7 as amended agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1565] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave that all the amendments set out on Dr Worth’s Supplementary Order Paper 344 relating to Part 11 be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that. Is that agreed to? Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to Part 11 be agreed to. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 324 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff and on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 11 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 11 as amended agreed to.
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1564] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I endorse what both the Minister and Dr Worth have said about conditional fee agreements so I will not waste the time of the Committee by dealing with that matter but I do want to make a few comments about law society libraries. In particular I want to address clauses 340 to 340D because they contain some detailed provisions about transitional arrangements relating to the dissolution of district law societies and to what are for them important assets mainly their libraries. On dissolution those assets can be dealt with in various ways including as set out in clause 304A(2)(b) whereby they may be transferred to an incorporated society and the incorporated society in a former law society district may be able to provide a law library. Then clause 340C(1) provides that the New Zealand Law Society may from time to time in the period of 5 years beginning with the close of 6 months referred to in clause 340(1) contribute to the funding. 
 My hope is that this next 5-year period will be used as an opportunity to rationalise district law society libraries around the country and indeed it is not before time. At the risk of being anecdotal I can say that in the early 1990s I served on the New Zealand Law Society’s library committee and we spent a great deal of time on the issue including getting consultants—as one has to when one breathes these days—to look at the whole issue of libraries. A very good report was provided which essentially stated that there should be three major libraries in the country—Auckland Wellington and Christchurch—and that services should be provided to the outlying districts. Several district law societies kicked up a fuss about that saying that their libraries meant a lot to them—well perhaps not the Timaru district library because I remember inspecting that and finding that most of its books were in a box down the back of the High Court registry. Certainly the Hawke’s Bay people seemed to think their district law library was pretty flash. If Mr Fairbrother were here—and of course I cannot comment that he is not here—I am sure he would be interjecting on that. 
So there is a need for rationalisation of law libraries. I welcome these provisions and express the hope that at the end of the 5-year period we will not need to face a situation where an amendment to this legislation will be required so that the New Zealand Law Society continues to fund libraries. It is high time there was reform of libraries and that is the only comment I wish to make on Part 11.
Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1563] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I shall continue the practice I have started. Part 11 contains a range of miscellaneous provisions but clauses 305 to 308 probably raise the most significant aspect of the part. Those clauses allow lawyers in limited circumstances to enter into conditional fee arrangements known as contingency fees. The provisions will enable the lawyer and client to agree that either the entire fee or an agreed proportion of the fee will be payable only upon the success of the client’s matter. I believe that those provisions formalise arrangements that are made on an informal basis in breach of Law Society rules around the country at the moment. However there are limits on that practice in the area of Family Court criminal work and immigration cases which are appropriately in my view excluded from conditional fee arrangements. 
A final point I want to make is that the conditional fee agreement not being a legal contract refers to the payment of a fee plus a premium. It is the definition of “premium” that is extremely important in the part because the provision does not allow for the premium to be calculated as a proportion of the amount recovered and I think that that is a very important protection. I commend Part 11 to the House.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1563] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 324 and 347 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff and on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 10 as amended agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1562] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave that all the amendments in Dr Worth’s Supplementary Order Paper 344 relating to Part 10 be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is not. First though I draw members’ attention to the amendments to clauses 300 and 301. They are inconsistent with previous decisions so they are ruled out of order. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to Part 10 be agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1562] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I see that the Minister is conferring with officials and I wonder whether that means she may respond to both my colleagues’ requests for a clarification of their points. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No she does not want to.
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1562] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Those of us who were in private practice in the early 1990s well remember the Renshaw Edwards disaster that affected the profession. I know that my firm had to contribute over $600000 to the fidelity fund. I know that Dr Worth’s firm had to do something similar and the big firms which were in no way associated with any kind of activity that would attract fidelity fund requirements contributed many millions of dollars to the fund. But that is behind us and we must move on. 
Other speakers have spoken about the desirability of a fidelity fund so I will not go there but I think that Mr Connell raised a very important point about clause 286B. I would invite the comments of the Hon Lianne Dalziel the Minister in the chair on it because for the life of me I fail to understand how it is to be expected that a handful of conveyancers—and it will start off as a handful even taking into account the grandparenting provisions in clause 346A relating to landbrokers—will provide cover for a theft of say $2 million soon after the fidelity fund is up and running and this new profession of conveyancing gets under way. I do not think it is an answer to say that insurance is the way through because I doubt whether the premium would be able to be paid by members of that new conveyancing profession. The premia would be horrendous. So I would be very grateful for the Minister’s response to that. 
I must say I have been very grateful to both the Attorney-General and the Minister for their occasional answers to questions but these are important matters. The lawyers and conveyancers legislation comes before Parliament for the first time in 24 years. The last time these important matters governing the profession were debated was 1982 and for me anyway as a new member maybe the reality of life is that Government MPs are sitting like zombies while we Opposition members speak. I would have hoped for a better debate at the Committee stage on some of these important issues of principle but maybe I hope in vain. I would certainly be grateful if the Minister could answer Mr Connell’s query and my query.
Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1558] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 As I have done with the other parts I will simply introduce the clauses. Part 10 requires both the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers to each maintain a fidelity fund to compensate clients for particular forms of pecuniary loss. This is a core and important part of the consumer protection functions of the bill and I commend the part to the Committee.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1557] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 16 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 278 be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 9 agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1557] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 264 be agreed to. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to clause 266 is out of order and his amendment to clause 267 is also out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Dr Richard Worth to omit clause 268(1)(b) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 344 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 277 is out of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 276 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) the expression “40%” and substitute the expression “45.1%”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 276 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) the expression “40%” and substitute the expression “30%”.