edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Woolerton R Doug: Regulatory Responsibility Bill — First Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Regulatory Responsibility Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10306] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support the Regulatory Responsibility Bill in Rodney Hide’s name going to a select committee. We think that bills such as this stimulate thought and allow a select committee and Parliament to re-examine current law and lawmaking practices. But we can give no guarantee and none is expected I know that we will support it any further. We will look to see what the select committee says about it and we will hear what lawyers and those sorts of people say about it as well. We know and Rodney Hide has told us that those people have some concerns already and I have a report to that effect. So there are some deep concerns about this bill. 
Sometimes with the best will in the world bills such as this that try to improve transparency improve good lawmaking and try to make things easier as it were in fact do quite the opposite. I suspect that might be correct if the Law Society is to be believed in the case of this bill. If that is so we will not support it. If that is incorrect we will have another look at the bill and hopefully support it further. 
In a select committee today we had such a situation. Mr Hide mentioned the fiscal responsibility legislation where part of that is being looked at because things that were brought in during the late 1990s to make life easier and more transparent and to make Ministers more accountable have ballooned out to at least twice the size they were when they were originally mooted. They are not serving the purpose they were designed for. The ministries involved have said of their own volition that we need to relook at this and that we need to make these things serve the purpose that was originally intended. 
In many cases the modern way of reporting is no better than that in past years. It is different it is sharper it is flasher and it is more colourful but in many cases it is not necessarily better. It is up to us in this Parliament to re-examine these things from time to time and that is why we support this bill. We believe that the select committee will be prodded to look at the way we do business. Hopefully if this bill is not to go through perhaps some good can come of it in another way. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.
Vote: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10302] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4.
Turner Judy: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10298] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take just a very brief call to explain that United Future will support this first reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill. We believe that there are some issues that need to be discussed and that the select committee provides a good forum for that discussion. The issues that this bill seeks to address are ones we have heard talked about in the wider community and in other forums as well. 
I signal that we have some concerns about this proposal. We believe that the Waitangi Tribunal needs the service of the people with the most expertise in order to execute its mandate. Our worry is that this bill would remove from service some of the most competent people available. So we are happy to have the discussion and we support the first reading but we signal at this stage that we are looking for feedback from submitters and from the select committee deliberations on that type of issue. Unless we have those concerns satisfied we will not be able to support this bill any further.
Hartley Ann: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10293] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I should have reminded members that after the first two speeches the speeches are of 5-minutes duration.
Hughes Darren: Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10288] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 It has been pleasing to move the first reading of the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill on behalf of my friend the Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban this afternoon. I thank members for their comments. I thank Mr Finlayson for his very generous comments in support of the bill and Mr Donnelly for quite a good detailed history of the circumstances that have led to this bill being necessary and for pointing out to us the important point that whenever the words “the New Zealand Company” are mentioned around the purchasing of land Parliament ought to take quite a detailed interest. I see the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Mita Ririnui nodding his head at that point. I acknowledge Ross Robertson our Assistant Speaker who spoke of his own personal connection to the burial ground covered by the bill as his family’s ancestors are buried there. 
Finally I acknowledge the contribution from Mr Flavell who I think made a very important point that the use of this land had a long history before it was a burial ground. I attempted to cover in my first reading remarks the fact that it was a site where there were enormous amounts of activity from Rangihaeata and indeed before that time. So it is a piece of land that has been a part of Maori and Pakeha history for many many years right through until today. I am glad the bill will get the chance to go to the select committee for proper consideration. I thank members for their support of this legislation. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.
Vote: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10281] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Hereora Dave: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — Second Reading 
Hereora Dave: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10280] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to take just a short call in this debate. I stand in support of this Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill going through its second reading. I start by using those famous words by Sir Barry Curtis: “I represent New Zealand’s most progressive city Manukau.” For all of us who have been in his presence and have heard his speeches those words have a familiar ring. 
As a resident of Manurewa within Manukau City I know that the Manukau area is often faced with the problem of graffiti. I attended a public meeting at Papakura about it not long after the last election. I can tell members that even politicians cannot escape graffiti; my election signs were affected in such a manner. 
I think it is important to place on record that I stand in support of our trying to get rid of to find a way through or to minimise this problem. It is a problem and one that we should all together try to resolve with the right solution. I have a few concerns surrounding issues related to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act particularly relating to section 23(4) which states that any person detained for an offence or a suspected offence has a right to refrain from making a statement. I think a particular part of the bill may have a detrimental effect in that it will result in unnecessary arrests of our young people who may not be involved in that activity. Having said that I support the idea that those who are caught in the act should be disciplined in some way and should be primarily responsible for clearing up the problem. 
I did say I would take a very short call. I wanted to take the opportunity to place on record my support for those trying to deal with this problem and to offer every assistance we can in the process. Kia ora.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10250] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You may need to point out to the Minister that he cannot table a document that has already been tabled. The National Party has put that document in the public arena. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order as the member well knows.
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10250] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a very extensive document which was supplied to Mr Phil Heatley on 22 June 2007 under the Official Information Act which indicates that the matters he referred to in question No. 8 were referred to the Crown solicitor for prosecution. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10250] 
11.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What recent reports has she received regarding the Securities Commission’s insider trading case involving David Richwhite and Sir Michael Fay? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I have seen a number of reports advising that the Securities Commission has successfully reached a financial settlement in this matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has she received any other reports regarding political figures supporting the innocence of Sir Michael Fay and David Richwhite as claimed by them; if so who would these people be and why would they have some understanding of merchant banking? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I did indeed see a report that said that Fay Richwhite had “settled with no wrongdoing” and that “they’ve taken the course they felt they needed to take and that is the end of the matter.” That came from the leader of the National Party who not surprisingly—and consistently with  
The Hollow Men— 
appears to have a closed mind on the issue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has she received reports explaining why someone with merchant bank experience would argue against what was clearly catalogued in the  
Weekend Herald 
 last week concerning $438 million being profited to Fay and Richwhite they having purloined $271 million from the New Zealand taxpayers and shareholders; who on earth would excuse that sort of behaviour? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I indicated in my earlier answer excuses for such behaviour may well be proffered by those in  
The Hollow Men 
. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is she aware of the circumstances around the purchase by Capital Markets of BNZ interests which were then sold off to Fay Richwhite the private company of Michael Fay and David Richwhite which were then sold at three times the value the same day thereby advancing them to the tune of $100 million and who has inquired into that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am aware that the incoming National Government in 1991 did indeed effect a very large bail-out of the Bank of New Zealand which I understand at the time was 30 percent owned by Fay Richwhite.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10248] 
9.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on the security of primary health subsidies? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have. The National Party said in September 2005 just prior to the last election that in effect under National doctors’ fees for 25 to 64-year-olds would double and prescription charges would rise from $3 to $15. However I then read in the  
Bay of Plenty Times 
 earlier this month that National’s health spokesperson Tony Ryall is now not sure what National’s policy will be. So we have certainty and security of low doctor fees and low prescription fees under Labour and uncertainty and insecurity if ever there were to be a National Government. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Given the disturbing answer from the Minister with reference to my primary question in terms of the information contained therein— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That member may well be disturbed but the word “given” at the start of his question is not appropriate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think it is absolutely inappropriate. You may recall that in question of the day No. 1 Mr English started off his—I think—second supplementary question with a “given”. I think it would be very good to enforce that ruling in every case. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I was aware of the first transgression of using the word “given”. If members could remove the word “given” from their vocabularies when they are asking questions that would be helpful. 
Martin Gallagher 
: In the light of the Minister’s answer—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member just ask the question. This is his last opportunity. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What is the effect on the average New Zealand family of the Labour-led Government’s policy to lower the cost of going to the doctor? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The last phase of the roll-out starts this Sunday. From that point all New Zealanders will have cheaper doctors’ fees and cheaper prescriptions. For an average family the cost of going to a general practitioner has fallen from about $940 a year to about $440 a year. This is what the National Party Opposition is placing at risk with its indecision. National used to be indecisive but now it is not so sure.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10246] 
7.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What are the key features of the 2007-08 National Land Transport Programme announced last evening? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The National Land Transport Programme allocates a record $2.4 billion across 12 activity classes. This is a record level of expenditure. A key feature of the programme is that it clearly demonstrates this Government’s commitment to transport infrastructure. We are investing over 145 percent more in transport than a National Government did in 1998-99. Furthermore in the coming year the Government expects to invest over $500 million in public transport. There is also increased funding for walking and cycling road safety and much more. 
Darren Hughes 
: Has the Minister received any comments about this large increase in funding for the National Land Transport Programme? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I have. I have seen many comments praising the Government for its commitment to New Zealand’s infrastructure. However I am rather bemused by the comments from Maurice Williamson. He admitted that there has been underspending for decades that there was a huge amount of catch-up to do but he dismissed the increases in funding as something that just goes up every year anyway. Well let us see whether it does. This graph which my colleague is holding up shows the level of under-investment by a National Government in the 1990s. It shows in fact that this present Government is serious about addressing under-investment. Have a look at the figures for National then at the figures for Labour and then look at the predicted increase. What a lousy increase we had under a National Government. The other thing is poor old Mr Williamson said he had difficulty getting money out of the then Minister of Finance. Well that was his Minister of Finance and I know that our Minister of Finance understands the need to invest into New Zealand.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Estimates—Select Committee Examination 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Estimates—Select Committee Examination 
[Volume:640;Page:10234] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Madam Speaker when you are addressing the issue that has been put to you by the spokesperson for the National Party perhaps you could judge whether it is a serious request by the fact that the foreign affairs estimates examination by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was treated to a total boycott by the National Party of the hearing. That might tell you whether that member is being sincere in that request or otherwise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that contribution but the essential point being made is that the estimates are in fact the appropriation process. The appropriations have not actually been made; that is the process that is before the select committees. But I also just repeat for the information of the member that if there is a particular issue then it is initially for the committee itself to address it; if there is a more general issue the Standing Orders Committee can look at it.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Estimates—Select Committee Examination 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Estimates—Select Committee Examination 
[Volume:640;Page:10234] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 First of all the member is factually incorrect: Parliament has not voted the appropriations for individual departments. That is why we debated the Imprest Supply Bill yesterday. Until the main Appropriation Bill is passed—sometime before the end of August—the appropriations have not actually been voted by this House. They are voted in the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What is one word’s difference? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The one word is “not” which is a very important word in almost any sentence in the English language. It is not that they have been appropriated; they have not been appropriated at this point in time. The select committees are there to examine the proposed appropriations and they do not need the output agreements for that to be possible. They need the actual volume of estimates and can examine the departments on those estimates. There will of course be some elements within line items that have not been fully developed in detail because money is held in broader contingencies within departments. So the member will get the chance to debate this matter when we debate the actual appropriations. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that points of order are heard in silence. I have been tolerant of the exchanges that have just taken place but no longer.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Estimates—Select Committee Examination 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Estimates—Select Committee Examination 
[Volume:640;Page:10233] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
:  
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With all due respect I think you have missed the point. Parliament has voted funding for these Government departments. The appropriations have been made based on the estimates. The estimates surely should have been made before the appropriations were granted. I do not think it is unreasonable that Parliament should have a view about the behaviour of Government departments in this regard. It is extremely disrespectful of the process. Further Madam Speaker you know that there is a natural process that Parliament goes through whereby select committees are expected to complete their estimates examination and report to Parliament. If there is absolutely no sanction on Government departments other than the threat that they might have to come back to the select committees and give their usual blurb for a longer period of time then we start to lose the control that Parliament should have on the expenditure of the Treasury of this country.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Estimates—Select Committee Examination 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Estimates—Select Committee Examination 
[Volume:640;Page:10233] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank Mr Brownlee. This matter of course as you are aware should be within the control of the committees so it should be raised with the committees. If they are not satisfied then they will reflect that in their examination. If there is a general issue though relating to that then may I suggest that the matter be taken up with the Standing Orders Committee which at the moment is considering a variety of matters. That would be the appropriate place.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Estimates—Select Committee Examination 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Estimates—Select Committee Examination 
[Volume:640;Page:10233] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your ruling and consequent advice on what I think is a reasonably important matter. Select committees at the moment are going through the estimates process whereby Ministers turn up to the committees to answer questions about various policy proposals in their ministries. Written questions are submitted to departments and other agencies so that the committee may get a clear idea of exactly what the money voted in the Budget is for. 
It has become a bit of a concern to National members that the replies of a number of departments suggest that their output plans have not yet been prepared and that they will be given to the committee at a later time. It is not just one ministry; it is many ministries that are in this situation. An example is a reply stating that the budget for the Government’s emission reduction plan which is to be developed by December 2007 is still to be finalised. Also in the case of Ministry of Economic Development we are told that the output plan of the ministry is being prepared and will be finalised at a later time and that it will then be made available to the committee. 
Parliament has voted money to these departments Parliament has a right to scrutinise what the expenditure is for and Parliament has a right to expect that Government departments bidding for funds then being granted funds by Ministers will know what they will use those funds for. So I ask your opinion Madam Speaker and your ruling as to where we go to get Government departments to tell us firstly why they have had funds voted to them and secondly what those funds are for.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Australia—President of the Australian Federal Senate 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Australia—President of the Australian Federal Senate 
[Volume:640;Page:10233] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Senator the Hon Paul Calvert President of the Australian Federal Senate accompanied by the Deputy Speaker is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat. 
The Hon Paul Calvert accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Simich Clem: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10225] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Part 2 which covers clauses 28 to 142 includes debate on schedule 3.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10225] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10225] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10225] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 122 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10224] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 126 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 17 be agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10224] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 126 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 15 be agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10224] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 126 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 13 be agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10224] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 126 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 12 be agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10223] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 126 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to omit clause 11 be agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10223] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 126 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 10 be agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10223] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 126 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 9 be agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10223] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 126 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to omit clauses 6 to 8 and substitute new clauses 6 and 7 be agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10222] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10220] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Although the member is correct in his first assertion he will know of course that under the same Standing Orders the decision on when the debate is concluded is entirely in the hands of the Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you. I do not need any more assistance; I am persuaded that we should hear Dr Wayne Mapp.
Power Simon: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10220] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My point of order just to assist you with that thinking aloud Mr Chairperson is that the honourable member Maryan Street in putting the closure motion actually got the wording of that motion wrong. As you know Mr Chairperson under the Standing Orders the way that the motion is put has to be exactly as it is stated in the Standing Orders. On that basis I would ask you to consider allowing Dr Mapp to take a call.
Street Maryan: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Street Maryan: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10220] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the motion now be put 
. 
[ 
Interruption 
] I move  
That the question now be put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think that after the persuasive arguments we have heard in the contributions members would like to test the amendments. [ 
Interruption 
] I am just thinking aloud Mr Power.
Carter Chris: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Carter Chris: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10219] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10211] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 First can I say that it is pleasing to hear the member who has just resumed her seat repeat and repeat—so I will take it seriously—that National supports our judiciary. She will be pleased to know that the best way to do that is to support the Sentencing Council which the vast majority of members of the judiciary support. [ 
Interruption 
] As I have listened to the members and I have taken a summary of what they have said prior to my arrival clearly these facts like any of the other facts have little to do with the position that members opposite want to take. 
I asked members opposite what was so terrible about the notion that other community viewpoints might have some bearing and input into the sentencing policy creation process. I would ask where the harm and the evil is in that. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: You haven’t even read the Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Oh for goodness’ sake I say to Mr Finlayson. He should not be silly. I have read the member’s Supplementary Order Paper. The member’s Supplementary Order Paper inflicts— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Well then that answers your question. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member should take a call if he wants to speak. If the member is so keen on the intent and interests of the judiciary I wonder why it would be that he would introduce something by vehicle of a Supplementary Order Paper that the judiciary have not asked for. 
I am confident that members of the judiciary would not welcome this House imposing on them the appointment of lay members to a Sentencing Council. This is not something that the member raised at the Justice and Electoral Committee. This is not something that the committee raised with the judiciary. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I certainly did raise it. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I have had a full report. This was not raised with the judiciary. Is the member going to stand up on his back feet and tell this Committee that the judiciary said it wanted the appointment of the lay members of this council? Indeed they did not say it because it is not true. I am confident that the judiciary would not want that burden of responsibility. 
I suggest to members that they look at the facts of what is contained in the bill and not listen to the nonsense that we have heard repeated by three or four members opposite which bears no resemblance to the facts.
Mapp Wayne: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10210] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 If I have caused offence to anyone I withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much Dr Mapp.
Hughes Darren: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10210] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. One of the most conservative members of the New Zealand Parliament just made a reference. I may have misheard Dr Mapp but I think that he actually used a swearword which seems quite radical for him. In a sense I congratulate him but I am not sure whether it was parliamentary.
Power Simon: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10205] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Although I thank the Minister for taking the call and giving the Committee an explanation perhaps— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is this a point of order? 
SIMON POWER 
: Yes well it is relating to that exact point following on from the Minister’s comments. Perhaps the Minister could take the time now just to clarify for the Committee why it is necessary to have this Supplementary Order Paper if those matters have been incorporated into the bill by the select committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is up to the Minister whether he wants to take a call on that.
O'Connor Damien: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10205] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I would not normally rush up like this but it is important that I do so before that member Simon Power rushes off on a tangent. He made reference to Supplementary Order Paper 99 dated 21 March and quite rightfully so. A very careful process has been observed throughout the development of this legislation. If the member bothered to read the bill and read the explanatory note he would see that on page 12 the Justice and Electoral Committee recommends inserting the clauses that are in the Supplementary Order Paper. I think it is important that the member is clear on that and that he accepts after his earlier criticism that this is very carefully thought out legislation.
Simich Clem: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10203] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate on Part 1 includes schedules 1 and 2.
Vote: Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10203] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Dyson Ruth: Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill — Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10203] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill be now read a third time 
.
Vote: Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10203] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Dyson Ruth: Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10203] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time 
.
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:640;Page:10203] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:640;Page:10203] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Hughes Darren: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Hughes Darren: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:640;Page:10175] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an extract from the  
Nelson Mail 
 where Nick Smith says that one of the problems in Parliament today is MPs indulging in too much personal abuse. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10164] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10159] 
9.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What reports if any has he received on support for greenhouse gas emissions agreements negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I have seen reports that the United States now agrees that the world needs a post-Kyoto global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that it ought to be done through the United Nations process. I note that the Kyoto agreement previously opposed by both Kazakhstan and the National Party was negotiated through the United Nations. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Can the Minister please tell the House of other recent reports on support for greenhouse gas emission agreements negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I can tell of two. The first is a letter to the editor dated 13 June 2007 from Dr Smith. The letter states: “Sir Last Saturday your correspondent … claimed ‘… stated we should pull out of Kyoto’. This is grossly untrue. I have never stated this.” I cannot reconcile that report with the 2004 article in the same paper which is headed: “Smith vows Kyoto exit” and states that Dr Smith said National would opt out of Kyoto. This goes beyond climate change politics to integrity. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There are no more supplementary questions. I call question No. 10 Simon Power. 
Simon Power 
: Thank you Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Corrections— 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the letter to the editor of 13 June where Dr Smith— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The second document is the earlier article in the same newspaper where Dr Smith vowed to pull out of Kyoto. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could take the opportunity to point out to the member who should know by now that seeking leave to table a document is done either straight after a question is asked or at the end of all the supplementaries not in the middle of another member’s supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I note the member’s point but if I had to do that with that member I would have to do so with just about all members. As you know points of order raised to seek leave to table documents are under consideration by the Standing Orders Committee. But I take the member’s point.
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10154] 
5.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: What actions if any has he taken in response to the revelations on 27 May that private investigators acting for a State-owned enterprise had hired spies to infiltrate and undermine protest groups; and can he now assure New Zealanders that all State-owned enterprises have ceased this practice? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 The Acting Minister for State Owned Enterprises wrote to all State-owned enterprises clearly specifying the expectation that “All SOEs operate to the highest standard of ethical behaviour and therefore they do not use paid informants as part of their security arrangements.” As a result of this action I am advised that no State-owned enterprise currently uses paid informants. 
Keith Locke 
: Flowing from that answer can the Minister assure us that the chair of each State-owned enterprise has actually replied directly to the Minister assuring the Minister that no such spying is going on or has gone on? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am informed that all 18 State-owned enterprises have responded to the Acting Minister for State Owned Enterprises stating that they are not using paid informants. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister in the light of his concern that spying is “not acceptable whether or not it is illegal or not it goes over the limit of what we expect in New Zealand.” have a meeting with the victims of the particular spying—the Save Happy Valley Coalition—which he has so far declined to do? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would suggest that those who feel aggrieved by the actions of State-owned enterprises that undertook paid spying as the member has said should approach the Minister for a meeting and I am sure he will respond. 
Keith Locke 
: What is the exact nature of the response that the Minister has received from the Solid Energy board since he phoned the chairman John Spencer on 28 May to express his concern about spying; and has he seen reports of when the board met whether it discussed the particular spying and what the outcome of that board meeting was? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am advised that Solid Energy is to hold a board meeting in early July so the board meeting that was promised has not yet been held. But there has been a response from Solid Energy which advised that it does not currently use paid informants.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10152] 
3.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any recent reports on the merits of the KiwiSaver scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received many many reports on the merits of the KiwiSaver scheme including of course full inclusions in the  
New Zealand Herald  
of major reports and a range of other reports from people such as financial commentator Mary Holm who said today that “practically all individuals will be better in than out.” and senior Fairfax journalist Bernard Hickey who said last week that “Enrolling in KiwiSaver is a no-brainer.” for just about everyone. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on alternative approaches to supporting savings in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I have seen reports that at various times challenge the existence of a savings problem endorse KiwiSaver criticise KiwiSaver promise to keep KiwiSaver promise to abolish KiwiSaver and promise to keep some bits of KiwiSaver and abolish other bits of KiwiSaver. These reports all come from Mr Key and Mr English. I have also seen Jo Doolan’s assessment that “National’s grandstanding and lack of a definite policy is also less than helpful”.
Visitors — Australia—President of the Australian Federal Senate 
Visitors — Australia—President of the Australian Federal Senate 
[Volume:640;Page:10233] 
Wednesday 27 June 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—President of the Australian Federal Senate 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Senator the Hon Paul Calvert President of the Australian Federal Senate accompanied by the Deputy Speaker is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat. 
The Hon Paul Calvert accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.