edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Ririnui Mita: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6430] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I thank the members for their contributions in terms of the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. I also appreciate the amendments in the name of Chris Finlayson. Those amendments pertain to a proposed new Part 4 of the settlement bill so I will acknowledge those points when we come to that stage of the debate. But I thank the member for his contribution. 
Of course the Government values the relationship it has established with Ngati Mutunga its negotiators and its people. In saying that I point out that we have advised Ngati Mutunga that this is an inappropriate use of settlement legislation. It is not something we have done in the past and it is not something we want to do in the future. Previous examples of such legislation have related to statutory bodies—for instance trust boards—or have been introduced by way of private legislation which we have seen in a number of cases such as with the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. But Chris Finlayson’s amendments have some merit. We value the relationship we have developed with Ngati Mutunga and as I said when the Committee comes to that stage of the debate I will speak to the matter in more detail. I thank the member for his contribution. 
As for the amendments in the name of Pita Paraone which seem to be part of a continuing saga the member is well aware of Labour’s position in terms of the retention of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi particularly in settlement legislation. The member asked the previous speaker the Hon Tau Henare what those principles were. Well I can offer some help to the member. It is pretty obvious that the Crown acknowledges in its apology that it failed to protect the property rights of Ngati Mutunga. As a result of that failure Ngati Mutunga have not participated in the development of the local economy and in opportunities at the local level. In fact they have been observers. They have been bystanders. Those two principles alone should satisfy us that the Crown was wrong in its actions and that it seeks to rectify that wrong—not in full only in part but it is certainly making a genuine attempt. 
At the same time I admire the member’s tenacity in continuing to promote the removal of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. We have been generous in allowing New Zealand First’s legislation on this matter to go to a select committee but I have to tell the member that after that—sayonara ka kite ano. I needed to respond to that particular matter raised by the member though I mean it when I say again that I admire his tenacity. I am sure that Ngati Mutunga are listening carefully to his arguments and do not agree with any of them. Kia ora.
Paraone Pita: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6427] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chair. In this part I want to talk specifically to references that are made to the word “principles” as it relates to the Treaty of Waitangi. I say from the outset that I have proposed a number of amendments and hope that this Committee might give some due regard to them. The stance that New Zealand First is taking on this issue should not come as any surprise to this Committee. Again I just want to take the opportunity of reiterating our concern and that is the fact that first there is no reference to principles stated in the Treaty and second while they appear in a number of pieces of legislation none of those references actually define what those principles are. Again that has been a concern to New Zealand First and also the fact that it has been left up to people outside of this House and to institutions outside of this House to define what those principles are. It would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to express our concern and also to seek their deletion from this bill. 
I also reiterate a comment I made during the second reading when reporting back on comments made by claimants themselves in regard to this bill and during the course of hearing submissions from claimants. When asked about the importance of the principles of the Treaty in relation to this settlement they did not have a view as to their importance for inclusion in this bill. But what they did say was that for them it was more important that recognition was given to the fact that a breach of the Treaty itself had taken place. So I reiterate the stance of New Zealand First and say that if this bill is passed it will be added to the list of legislation that includes those principles when my colleague’s bill for the removal of those references from legislation comes up.
Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6427] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I reiterate what my colleague Gerry Brownlee said. The Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill is pretty straightforward in terms of settlement legislation. We do not want to hold up the process but we do want to make clear our intentions of bringing forward to the Committee a new Part 4 which hopefully the Government will take a look at—we hope the Minister of Maori Affairs will push play and get a copy of it. The amendment is an honest attempt to make sure that this process runs as smoothly as possible. I will not take up too much more of the Committee’s time other than to say that the National Party is totally supportive of this legislation.
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6427] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 We do not wish to spend a great deal of time on the preamble to the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. It sets out very clearly the process that led to this settlement. Further to that the preamble deals with matters relating to the time from which the settlement itself will become effective. We wish to reserve the speaking opportunities we get in this debate to the more substantive clauses that we will see in the future. In particular I point the Committee to a proposed new Part 4 which will be introduced by Mr Finlayson and seconded by Mr Tau Henare. We are of the view that the time of the Committee would be best spent discussing that particular matter this afternoon. 
Preamble agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Stadium—Proposed Location Auckland 
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Stadium—Proposed Location Auckland 
[Volume:635;Page:6426] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Your decision is final on these debates. They are not subject to challenge by points of order or indeed by any other form. Mr Locke has almost just counted himself out by pointing out that if a decision is made at least in one direction and we have already had support from the National Party for legislation on Eden Park that would be debatable by means of legislation. The fact that there is wide public debate is I am afraid irrelevant. There was wide public debate about the lineage of a member of the Kiwis rugby league team only a week or so ago which clearly did not at least as far as I know involve any member of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their comments.
Locke Keith: Urgent Debates Declined — Stadium—Proposed Location Auckland 
Locke Keith: Urgent Debates Declined — Stadium—Proposed Location Auckland 
[Volume:635;Page:6426] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I reinforce the points that Mr Hide has made because the debate he refers to that is taking place across the country and particularly in Auckland has a context of what this Parliament will decide in terms of authorising legislation overriding the Resource Management Act etc. The people of Auckland and the people of the country deserve to know Parliament’s position on these matters. How can they make an informed decision otherwise?
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates Declined — Stadium—Proposed Location Auckland 
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates Declined — Stadium—Proposed Location Auckland 
[Volume:635;Page:6426] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am concerned about the fact that we have an issue and there is some discretion here for having an urgent debate. The Government has made a decision in the sense that this site is its preferred option and it has given Auckland City 2 weeks to make up its mind. We now have it seems to me the absurd situation where the whole country is debating the stadium its merits the options and the situation yet we are unable to have that debate in Parliament. Maybe we could word the request better for tomorrow or the next day but it does seem to me a difficult situation for our Parliament. There is this whole debate consuming the country about what the Government is up to and what the Government has done yet we are denied the opportunity to have such a debate in Parliament.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Stadium—Proposed Location Auckland 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Stadium—Proposed Location Auckland 
[Volume:635;Page:6426] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Keith Locke MP seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the proposed waterfront stadium in Auckland. Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility for there to be a particular case of recent occurrence and an event upon which an urgent debate must have occurred. The purpose of the urgent debate procedure is to provide an opportunity for the House to hold the Government to account for its decisions. The announcement from the Minister for the Rugby World Cup on the stadium in Auckland is part of a decision-making process requiring input from Auckland City and regional councils over the next 2 weeks. No decision has yet been made by the Government only an announcement that a decision is required. In these circumstances there is no particular case of recent occurrence. This does not mean the matter is not of sufficient import to require the attention of the House; it simply does not meet the requirement of an urgent debate procedure at this time. The application is therefore declined.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6424] 
12.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What measures is she taking to streamline business law? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The passage of the Business Law Reform Bill—I hope this week—will see the removal of unnecessary compliance costs and ensure consistency between different legislative requirements. For example the vast majority of small companies will qualify under the new “two out of three” test and will be able to produce financial statements in a simple format under the exempt company regime thereby reducing compliance costs significantly. 
Maryan Street 
: Why is the Minister not including amendments to address the concerns expressed by the Takeovers Panel during its submission to the Commerce Committee on the Business Law Reform Bill? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am advised that the Takeovers Panel raised concerns that the Companies Act scheme of arrangement process had been used by companies to avoid the Takeovers Code. The Government approved a Supplementary Order Paper to address some but not all of the panel’s concerns but it could not proceed as it was objected to by the National Opposition. 
Maryan Street 
: What will the Government do now to address the concerns of the panel given that the Supplementary Order Paper is not proceeding? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Tragically the issue has now had to be referred back to officials for further work before a decision is taken by Cabinet on whether broader amendments need to be made to the Companies Act or whether the regulation-making power in the proposed Supplementary Order Paper would suffice. It is disappointing that the select committee’s unanimous support for change did not extend to the Committee stage of the current bill.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6417] 
8.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: What reports if any has she received recently of progress on the New Zealand Disability Strategy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 I have seen a report on the recent closure of the last institution for disabled people the Kimberley Centre at Levin and I was honoured to be part of a major celebration to mark this occasion at Parliament today. The celebration included many former residents of our 13 institutions. Deinstitutionalisation is about ensuring that disabled people can live in their communities and do the day-to-day things that most of us take for granted which is a key aim of the Disability Strategy. The closing of the last institution is not only a historic milestone for disabled people but also a mark of our maturity and progress as a nation. 
Darren Hughes 
: Has the Minister received any other reports concerning any potential obstacles to progress on our New Zealand Disability Strategy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Actually I have. I have seen a recent report that advocates backward-thinking arrangements for employing disabled people. It comes not surprisingly from the National Party and I note that the Disabled Persons Assembly has issued a media statement calling the National Party statement outdated and out of touch. I can only really strongly agree with the assembly. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why did the Government fail to find suitable accommodation for people such as David Stephens in the North Island close to where his relatives had explicitly requested he be sent but instead send him to Dunedin leading his mother to say of the process of deinstitutionalisation: “I was shocked and angered but am now devastated by the decision and the way it was handled.”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Unlike that member I will not breach Mr Stephens’ privacy by disclosing his wishes about where he wanted to live. But I can assure that member and the House that despite the member’s protestations Mr Stephens is in a home where he feels secure is safe and is participating in the community. Not only that; he is very nearby to relatives who will actually visit him. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is from a  
Listener 
 dated October 2006 and quotes Mrs Stephens saying: “We feel like we’ve been bullied. We’re just stunned. We don’t know what we can do now.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table a letter from David Stephen’s sister Sarah Nelson dated 30 October 2006 that states: “David and others like him need a facility in the North Island in order to provide safe secure professional long-term care. The family was excluded from any court hearings.” 
Document not tabled.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6410] 
2.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What is the Government doing to support the future of public broadcasting in response to the challenge of digital technology? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 In June this year the Government announced funding of $25 million to support the establishment of FreeView a platform to deliver free-to-air digital television to New Zealanders from 2007. Today we announced backing for Television New Zealand (TVNZ)’s digital content proposal with funding of $79 million over the next 6 years. This investment will strengthen TVNZ’s position as our flagship public television broadcaster and New Zealanders can expect such things as more local content and diversity more in-depth programming and opportunities for a wider range of audiences to view programmes at more accessible times. 
Martin Gallagher 
: How does the Minister intend that progress towards a digital television environment be funded? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Broadcasters across the board not just TVNZ will mostly fund their changes off their balance sheets as will TVNZ. However some revenue can be expected from stronger credit management. In particular the sector is owed $112000 by the New Zealand National Party and I think the National Party could help this change into the digital era if it recognised that the law has been broken that it owes money and that it should just pay it back. 
Pita Paraone 
: Does the Minister believe that by making the two free-to-air digital channels commercial free TVNZ will be able to reduce the risk of bad debts being brought about by advertisers refusing to pay the GST content of their advertising bills such as the one owed by the National Party? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Because TVNZ will not be exposed to any commercial revenue on those two channels it will mean that the problem it had with the National Party which is still refusing to pay back its $112000 will not arise.
Yates Dianne: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6620] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I thank Shane Ardern the chair of the Government Administration Committee. As the previous chair I know that this Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill came out of an inquiry the committee had and that it was a promise of the Minister of Justice at the time Phil Goff to bring in this bill. 
The bill is about people taking dirty pictures in places where they are not supposed to do so and I am really pleased that some people are already implementing this law. Our local swimming pool has signs up to say to beware of people who might be around who might be tempted—especially with all their technology cellphones and stuff—to take what is now called “intimate covert filming”. So the bill is about people taking sneaky pictures in places where they should not. I think it is very good legislation and I thank the select committee for the work it has done on it. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6617] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I wanted to speak in the Committee stage of the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill and to thank the previous speakers and the members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee who worked on the bill. 
As Mr Locke has correctly said the select committee did look at the issues around national preventive mechanisms and as he has already said felt that it was not necessary to name them in the substantive legislation as it was felt that some flexibility was needed in terms of possible changes. The other things that the select committee did were to continue the designation of the Ombudsmen in the health and disabilities services area and to ensure that the reporting mechanisms were described in the bill so that those organisations that report to the House would do so and those that report to the Minister would be included under new section 27 in clause 6. 
So I want to thank those who have been involved with this bill. I thank Mr Locke for his amendments. The committee did consider them and although members conceded that he did make some points they felt it was not necessary to include those in the bill as a whole. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Finlayson Christopher: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6616] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I want to raise just a couple of matters about Part 2 which as both Dr Worth and Mr Locke have said deals with a number of consequential amendments to other legislation. I would be very interested to learn from the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove who has a well-deserved reputation for having a deep knowledge of public international law whether he could answer just a couple of questions. But first I want to go through the various provisions in the bill that get to the questions I will ask. 
New section 26 in clause 6 deals with the designation of national preventive mechanisms. In accordance with article 17 of the optional protocol the Minister must not less than 1 year after the optional protocol is ratified by New Zealand designate the number of national preventive mechanisms that the Minister considers necessary. That deals with the part of the optional protocol—I think it is article 17—that places an obligation on New Zealand once ratification has occurred to maintain designate or establish at the latest 1 year after the entry into force of the optional protocol one or several independent national preventive mechanisms for the prevention of torture at the domestic level. 
Then I come to Part 2 because as one can see quite a few consequential amendments are required to other Acts. The amendments are to the Corrections Act the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act and to the Ombudsmen Act 1975 and the Police Complaints Authority Act 1988. Those are the ones that I focus on. 
I would be interested to know if the Minister could take a call just how many national preventive mechanisms once all these changes have been put in place the Government is considering appointing. I would have thought that at the end of the day rather than to have a plethora of national preventive mechanisms it would be much better to have one or two. Indeed I think a case could be made for having one specialist authority. I am interested in that because as so often happens with legislation these days the amendment bill is far longer than the Crimes of Torture Act itself. I can understand why that is. Some care has to be taken when one is establishing the new regime consequent upon our ratification of the protocol with regard to the provision for subcommittees to visit New Zealand and the establishment of national preventive mechanisms. I am interested to know whether the Government has given any thought to the number of mechanisms New Zealand is supposed to need after this bill becomes an Act.
Vote: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6614] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Noes 90 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 29; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 75 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 6 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6614] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Noes 90 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 29; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit section 32 from new Part 2.
Vote: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6614] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Noes 90 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 29; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit section 26 from new Part 2.
Vote: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6613] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Noes 90 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 29; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from section 16 in new Part 2 the definition  
National Preventive Mechanism  
and substitute the following new definition: 
National Preventive Mechanism 
 means 1 or more of the following: 
(a)The Ombudsman 
(b)The Police Complaints Authority 
(c)The Human Rights Commission 
(d)The Office of the Children’s Commissioner or 
(e)Judge Advocate General.
Stewart Barbara: Energy Safety Review Bill — Second Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Energy Safety Review Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6604] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to take a very short call on the Energy Safety Review Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill. We recognise that it is a very important bill for all New Zealanders as householders in particular are dependent on the safety of electrical wiring in their homes and their electrical appliances. We note with the return of this bill to the House that part of the original bill has been divided off to form another bill. This bill now focuses on the electrical workers as the previous speakers commented on. 
I must say that as a householder I have had dealings with electricians on a number of occasions for many small electrical jobs and all of them have completed an excellent job. I have never ever had any complaints about their work. This is one area that as a member of Parliament I have never had any complaints about from the public. The electricians always test their work prior to leaving the house and they always ensure that the customer is totally satisfied. 
When I did a search of the media coverage relating to this bill there was very little available. I could find only two references which were both from the  
Independent 
. Those references stated that this bill had the potential to cost consumers slightly more as affected industries will have to pass on the costs of licences. However that cost should be offset by the fact that the duration of a licence has been extended from 2 to 5 years. The commentary states: “This change aims to remove perceived disincentives in the form of increased costs for those contemplating becoming electrical workers.” The Commerce Committee has also recommended extending the duration of a provisional licence from 3 to 12 months. Again this will give provisional licence holders time to complete the licensing requirement within the duration of the provisional licence. 
 My late father would have been most interested in this bill as he was a registered electrician. I must say that it was a registration and a licence that he was very proud of and always kept up to date right throughout his life. As children and young people he always taught us to be extremely careful of electricity because it is very rare ever to get a second chance when something goes wrong in this area. 
So New Zealand First members support this bill and we look forward to more input into it at the Committee stage.
Dunne Peter: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6600] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred to the Education and Science Committee 
referred to Education and Science Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 28 February 2007 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6582] 
8.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports if any has he received on the Government’s progress at reducing the number of New Zealanders on the unemployment benefit? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The latest monthly benefit numbers show that the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit continues to plummet. When this Government first came into office in 1999 160000 people were on the unemployment benefit. Earlier this year the number of people on the unemployment benefit fell below 40000 for the first time. I am pleased to inform the House today that the number of people on the unemployment benefit at the end of October was 39001. This enormous success changes many lives and New Zealanders should be well pleased about it. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Can the Minister confirm that the overall benefit numbers are also continuing to fall? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes. Contrary to the impression some Opposition members are trying to create in their local newspapers overall benefit numbers have recently fallen by an even greater amount than the unemployment benefit. In the year to October 2006 the total number of people on benefits fell by 11368. Although this period registered a small rise in sickness and invalids benefit numbers unemployment benefit numbers fell by 9938 and domestic purposes benefit numbers fell by 5489. People coming off a benefit in the last year outnumbered those going on to any benefit by a ratio of 4:1.
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:635;Page:6573] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House at its rising today to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 21 November 2006 as there is a luncheon for the President of the Republic of Chile. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:635;Page:6573] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House at its rising today to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 21 November 2006 as there is a luncheon for the President of the Republic of Chile. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:635;Page:6573] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Energy Safety Review Bill the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill the Evidence Bill the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill and the first reading of the small but perfectly formed Income Tax Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:635;Page:6573] 
Thursday 16 November 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 Energy Safety Review Bill the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill the Evidence Bill the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill and the first reading of the small but perfectly formed Income Tax Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Duynhoven Harry: Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill — In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6678] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call partly to answer Chris Tremain who mentioned in the debate on Part 6 some issues in regard to the way courses were structured by the plumbing industry etc. Mr Tremain quite rightly said there was concern in the industry particularly among its older participants that these courses were somehow mandated by the legislation. Well that is the job properly of the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board and Part 8 of the bill sets out how the board will function. It improves the transparency of the board addresses some of the issues in this bill and addresses some of the issues that have been causing some grief in the industry. That is a result of the review that the committee had. The committee saw fit to change this part of the bill and to strengthen it. 
The determination by the industry training organisation—the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board—as to what sorts of courses are necessary for a practising licence and what sorts of courses might be offered is entirely up to the board to make rather than for us to prescribe in legislation and that is fit and proper. I think that it is probably what we have now and that this bill will be welcomed by the industry. 
I take on board what Mr Tremain said about how plumbers were saying that they were fearful of this legislation and that the changes were going too far. The bill is now in better shape as a result of the select committee work done on it and as a result of officials working with the industry to try to redress some of the misinformation that had gone out early on. 
The industry as we heard earlier had not been adequately consulted—not by the officials the Minister or the ministry in terms of getting the bill together but because the industry itself did not have effective communication between the board and the participants. The ordinary plumber working in society was not getting the feedback from the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board as to what should be happening. 
There is of course split accountability. The Energy Safety Review Bill properly comes under my delegation but the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill was a subset of Ministry of Health delegations. Therefore different Ministers were involved as well. 
So I will just say that I am very pleased with where this legislation has got to. The points made by Mr Tremain were valid and they have largely been addressed by what has happened. I shall be particularly interested to see when we get to the review stage in 3 years’ time—as is set out in the legislation—how this has worked out and whether the plumbing gasfitting and drainlaying industry wants to change the provisions that are now before us in this bill. Thank you Mr Chairperson. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to Part 8 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 8 as amended agreed to.
Street Maryan: Energy Safety Review Bill — In Committee 
Street Maryan: Energy Safety Review Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6668] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for allowing me to take this slightly late call. I just wanted to respond to something the previous speaker Chris Auchinvole said. It is to do with Part 3 and the registration process which my colleague is keen to take credit for. I think it is stretching things a little to say that it was a National Party intervention that caused this. 
The first purpose of this bill in the initial stage was to simplify the registration and competence procedure surrounding trades. To that end the first bill was introduced with a single process called licensing. In the course of submissions it became very clear that there was a significant emotional attachment—in fact it was more than an emotional attachment; identification—with registration. I have made this point in previous speeches but it is worth saying again that the registration for electricians and other tradespeople as we will see when we move on to later bills before us tonight is as important to them as a doctor’s registration is to her or him. It is a very important rite of passage. It is an important milestone in their career. To that end all parties around the select committee table agreed that it should be reinstated as registration and licensing—registration to recognise the gaining of the ticket and licensing to ensure ongoing competence. When that was put as a possibility to the Minister the Hon Harry Duynhoven he agreed entirely that that was an appropriate thing to do given the strength of feeling and given his own experience of that as well. 
So what was I think in the first instance an effort to simplify the procedure became reinstated as a two-stage process for registration and for ongoing competence. So I could not let the previous speaker claim that the National Party has sua sponte made a huge improvement for electricians and the universe in this regard. Thank you. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Vote: Energy Safety Review Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Energy Safety Review Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6667] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 76 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Sharples Pita: Energy Safety Review Bill — In Committee 
Sharples Pita: Energy Safety Review Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6664] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The Maori Party will support the Energy Safety Review Bill but I have an amendment on the table to omit Subpart 2 “Employer licences” from Part 10 “Registration and licensing of electrical workers and employer licences”. This amendment was suggested in the public submission of the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union to the Commerce Committee. The Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union is New Zealand’s largest trade union representing some 50000 workers in 10 industries including 2500 who work in the electrical industry. 
Currently the Electrical Workers Licensing Board can issue practising licences to individuals and employers. We do not support the board being able to issue employer licences whereby employers can hold a practising licence on behalf of their workers. That compromises both workers and the public. It is important to have highly trained people that fellow workers can absolutely rely on. It gives workers confidence to know that their colleagues are properly trained and hold their own individual practising licence rather than knowing the licence is held by the employer. Business costs and skill shortages mean that employers may use less trained less experienced people putting the other workers and the public at risk. Workers do not have faith in allowing companies to self-regulate. 
The intent of this bill is to ensure the safety of workers and of the public. Employer licences potentially compromise the safety of both.
Vote: Appointments — Representation Commission 
Vote: Appointments — Representation Commission 
[Volume:635;Page:6662] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That pursuant to section 28(3)(b) of the Electoral Act 1993 for the purposes of determining the boundaries of the Maori electoral districts this House nominates Whetumarama Wereta of Lower Hutt to represent the Government and (Terrence) John McEnteer of Wellington to represent the Opposition to be appointed as members of the Representation Commission. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 18 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Appointments — Representation Commission 
Vote: Appointments — Representation Commission 
[Volume:635;Page:6662] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That pursuant to section 28(2)(e) of the Electoral Act 1993 this House nominates Hon David Francis Caygill of Christchurch to represent the Government and Hon Roger Morrison Sowry of Paraparaumu to represent the Opposition to be appointed as members of the Representation Commission. 
Ayes 99 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; Progressive 1. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Motion agreed to.
Brown Peter: Appointments — Representation Commission 
Brown Peter: Appointments — Representation Commission 
[Volume:635;Page:6656] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I think that the two nominees for the Representation Commission are really a reflection of first past the post. It is about time we came to terms with the fact that this is an MMP Parliament and the representation on such committees should reflect that. There are eight parties in this Parliament but if we listened to the member who has just resumed her seat we would think there were only two. I have to say that that goes for Government members also; they speak as if it were a Parliament made up of just National and Labour. 
We are quite upset by the fact that smaller parties are not even considered in this issue. Names of representatives come up. The member went into the background of the people she is supporting. They have been around for so long—well before MMP came into being—that they are entrenched in first past the post and are not representatives of this Parliament as they should be. It is all very well for the member to say they have a good understanding of the political process but first and foremost Parliament had better start understanding. Those two particular parties Labour and National had better start understanding that this is MMP. Like it or lump it it is MMP. Smaller parties here should have some sort of say in who represents them. 
We are so concerned about this that we have written to the Prime Minister. We would like this issue addressed. We would like it addressed now but I guess that is unlikely. We are certainly concerned enough that we want it addressed before the next Parliament. 
I do not know what else to say except that New Zealand First will be opposing this. I am hopeful that all the small parties will be opposing this. The Maori Party has four Maori seats but the representative for supposedly the Opposition is an MP for National which has never won a Maori seat in its life. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is that true? 
PETER BROWN 
: If it has it was years and years and years ago. The Maori Party has been totally ignored. 
We think this is not the way forward. We think this is just being entrenched in the past and we are hopeful that the Labour Government will take our concerns to heart and try to rectify the situation. New Zealand First will oppose both these motions.
Burton Mark: Appointments — Representation Commission 
Burton Mark: Appointments — Representation Commission 
[Volume:635;Page:6654] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 28(2)(e) of the Electoral Act 1993 this House nominates Hon David Francis Caygill of Christchurch to represent the Government and Hon Roger Morrison Sowry of Paraparaumu to represent the Opposition to be appointed as members of the Representation Commission. 
Further 
  
I move  
That pursuant to section 28(3)(b) of the Electoral Act 1993 for the purposes of determining the boundaries of the Maori electoral districts this House nominates Whetumarama Wereta of Lower Hutt to represent the Government and (Terrence) John McEnteer of Wellington to represent the Opposition to be appointed as members of the Representation Commission 
. 
The Representation Commission is the body charged under the Electoral Act 1993 with determining the number of electoral districts in New Zealand and fixing their boundaries. Section 28(2)(e) provides that two persons shall be appointed as members of the commission for the purposes of determining the boundaries of the general electoral districts one of those members being nominated to represent the Government and one to represent the Opposition. Section 28(3)(b) provides that for the purposes of determining the boundaries of the Maori electoral districts two persons shall be appointed as members of the commission—again one of those members being nominated to represent the Government and one to represent the Opposition. Appointments to the Representation Commission are made by the Governor-General by Order in Council on the nomination of this House of Representatives. 
I shall speak briefly to the nominees. Mr Caygill has served two previous terms on the Representation Commission. He is a former senior Cabinet Minister and served six terms as a member of this House. Mr Caygill is a lawyer by profession. Mrs Wereta has served three previous terms on the Representation Commission. She has a background in research and is currently general manager of the Maori statistics unit of Statistics New Zealand. Mr Sowry commenced as Chief Executive of Arthritis New Zealand in September 2005. Prior to this as members will know he spent 15 years as a member of Parliament holding numerous responsibilities that included being Associate Minister of Health from 1997-98 Minister of Social Welfare from 1996-99 and National Party spokesperson on health from 2001-03. Finally Mr McEnteer runs a consultancy practice specialising in environmental resource management Treaty of Waitangi issues and business development from a dual cultural perspective. He has strong links to Tainui and has held a number of directorships and trusteeships including being an executive member of the Federation of Maori Authorities and chairperson of a Coromandel-based trust.
Burton Mark: Evidence Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Evidence Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6653] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I echo the sentiments of the member who has just resumed his seat. Indeed we should again put on record the outstanding work undertaken by the officials. But that work did add to the decade-long as one member referred to earlier work of the Law Commission. 
It is interesting as Chris Finlayson just noted that Sir Geoffrey Palmer not only featured in the House’s earlier efforts in this area but as President of the Law Commission continues to feature as we progress this legislation. I believe as I said earlier that by drawing together common law and statutory provisions into one comprehensive scheme and dealing with many of those ambiguities and inconsistencies that have accumulated over many years the law book is being well served notwithstanding the member’s warning to us all that as a new day begins with it comes new opportunities to add confusion! 
But I think this measure is a good example of the benefit of this institution and the others I have referred to working at their best. The Justice and Electoral Committee and its subcommittee considered what was already I think a substantial and good piece of work. In my view the further amendments they made to it improved it. I think that we have before us the best efforts of many good minds and intentions and that we are the better for it. I look forward to taking a call in the third reading of the bill in the not too distant future and seeing it enacted. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.