edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hughes Darren: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2712] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 The Labour Party supports the second reading this afternoon of the Manfeild Park Bill which is being shepherded through the House by the member for Rangitikei Mr Simon Power. 
As Mr Power said the bill went to the Local Government and Environment Committee where there was an opportunity for submissions to be made. As is often the case with local and private bills there was a limited number of submissions because the issues that the bill covers are very much localised to Manfeild Park. Indeed the committee report notes that the committee received two submissions from interested groups and members of the public and two from groups associated with the development of the bill. The committee heard submissions from all four groups. 
Manfeild Park plays a very prominent role in the town of Feilding being used for a number of community purposes and major public events. Those range from obviously motor sport through to the events of the local A and P association. Many other groups also use the park. The bill will set up a trust and the committee has considered a number of provisions regarding how that trust can best be managed. Mr Power has already spoken about the make-up of the electoral college. 
The Government will support the second reading of this bill.
Power Simon: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Power Simon: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2712] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I move  
That the Manfeild Park Bill be now read a second time 
. The Manfield Park Bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I take this opportunity to thank that committee and in particular its chairperson Steve Chadwick for not only accommodating this bill in a speedy way but also accommodating my own personal requirements to be at the committee at the time that the bill was put before it. Her ability to include me as the member promoting the bill was very much appreciated. 
The bill did not go through the select committee without controversy. I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised by both the Green Party and the Maori Party around issues of representation on the Manfield Park Trust. I also acknowledge Metiria Turei’s contribution on the committee. Her comments are contained at the conclusion of the section in the commentary that relates to the electoral college. 
I say to the Green Party and the Maori Party that I hope they consider that the extension of the bill’s report-back date—it was reported back later than we initially thought would be the case—was at least some gesture of goodwill. It enabled those who had concerns around representation on the electoral college to have an opportunity to air those concerns at the select committee in a way that ensured that they saw the process as constructive but that also highlighted to those who will be in charge of the trust itself that some matters remain outstanding. I think that is a fair way to summarise the bill. 
The bill has been substantially altered from the time it entered the select committee and I think that proves that the select committee process—and MMP to some extent I say a little begrudgingly—does work. The committee discovered that the original bill as drafted by the promoter was just too prescriptive in nature. It attempted to reach down into the management and representation requirements of the Manfeild Park Trust. The select committee—and then with the benefit of having heard submissions the promoter of the bill—determined that the best way to avoid the legislation coming back to the House for constant revision and amendment as the journey of the Manfeild Park Trust commenced was simply to make the bill as wide as possible in application and to reduce somewhat the prescriptive nature of the bill’s original intent. If members look through the bill they will see that large chunks have been struck out unanimously by the select committee—apart from the electoral college provisions which were struck out by majority. 
I do not want to say any more than that other than to thank the Hon Steve Maharey for working alongside me on the progression of the bill. I believe that has made a difference to the way in which the bill has progressed through the House and the select committee and I look forward to the bill completing all its stages this afternoon.
Power Simon: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Power Simon: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2712] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House for this bill to go from its second reading straight to its third reading omitting the Committee stage in order to have it completed today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Donnelly Brian: General Debate 
Donnelly Brian: General Debate 
[Volume:630;Page:2701] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. An allegation has just been made about a member of New Zealand First. There are three members of New Zealand First here and I would like to know which member the allegation refers to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say that the member’s point of order did not stand. It would have stood only if someone who had the call addressed someone outside or in the gallery.
Bennett David: General Debate 
Bennett David: General Debate 
[Volume:630;Page:2701] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During that fine speech from Mr Heatley one of the members of New Zealand First was speaking to the gallery. I understand that is not allowed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr Bennett for that. It is during the course of their speeches that members are not to address the gallery.
Peters Winston: General Debate 
Peters Winston: General Debate 
[Volume:630;Page:2701] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are still some members of the House and the listening public who are awake and therefore I move an extension of time for Mr Heatley. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. I say to the member that he has been here long enough to know that sort of thing can lead to disorder.
Beyer Georgina: Tabling of Documents — Housing New Zealand Financial Review 
Beyer Georgina: Tabling of Documents — Housing New Zealand Financial Review 
[Volume:630;Page:2697] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a letter. I do this as chair of the Social Services Committee on behalf of that committee. It is a letter from Helen Fulcher Chief Executive of the Housing New Zealand Corporation that provides a correction to an answer given during the financial review of Housing New Zealand. The letter corrects the information. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Tabling of Documents — Housing New Zealand Financial Review 
Tabling of Documents — Housing New Zealand Financial Review 
[Volume:630;Page:2697] 
Tabling of Documents 
Housing New Zealand Financial Review 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a letter. I do this as chair of the Social Services Committee on behalf of that committee. It is a letter from Helen Fulcher Chief Executive of the Housing New Zealand Corporation that provides a correction to an answer given during the financial review of Housing New Zealand. The letter corrects the information. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2689] 
8.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What steps has the Government taken to reduce health risks associated with poor air quality? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am sure all members of the House and most New Zealanders would agree that maintaining a clean and healthy environment is a strategic investment in the country’s future. That is why this Government has introduced 14 National Environmental Standards for Air Quality banned activities that discharge toxins into the air such as the burning of tyres oil and coated wire reduced the sulphur in diesel from 3000 parts per million to just 50 parts per million and is looking at a further reduction funded $800000 of air quality monitoring equipment for regional councils to help them to meet those standards established a Warm Homes project to investigate how to encourage a move to cleaner heating and warmer homes and introduced design standards for new domestic woodburners. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What is the most recent initiative the Government has undertaken? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Government has just committed a further $750000 to assist Canterbury’s Clean Heat project and Nelson’s Clean Heat - Warm Homes scheme. In New Zealand fine particle air pollution contributes to an estimated 870 premature deaths a year and the problem is clearly worse in some areas than others due to topography and climate. That sort of investment in clean and efficient home heating will doubtless help to reduce air pollution and it is a most important investment in the health of New Zealanders in such areas.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2687] 
6.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Following David Parker’s admission that he had “cut a corner and that was a mistake” did she or her staff ask David Parker before he was reinstated into Cabinet whether there were any other corners that he might have cut that could compromise his ability to be an effective Minister; if so was she satisfied with his response? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Rodney Hide 
: What is the Prime Minister’s response then to Mr Stephenson and Mr Clear swearing statements that David Parker made a false representation about the ownership of a major asset belonging to his company and arranged a series of preferential payments to creditors at a time when he knew his company to be insolvent? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand the matters referred to were dealt with in a normal liquidation process and no irregularities were found. 
Rodney Hide 
: If Mr Clear and Mr Stephenson are telling the truth in their statements would it be the Prime Minister’s opinion that Mr David Parker had done wrong? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think the Prime Minister is responsible for that. Would you like to rephrase the question? I am aware you have only a limited number of supplementary questions. 
Rodney Hide 
: If Mr Clear and Mr Stephenson are telling the truth would Mr Parker be of a standard acceptable to her Cabinet? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I simply repeat that these matters were subject to a normal liquidation process and no irregularities were found. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Prime Minister seen Mr Hide’s interpretation of the recent investigation in respect of Mr Parker which was that a 1999 document was a whitewash of an event that happened 6 years later and what does she think of that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I think is that Mr Hide is simply unable to accept the outcome of any investigation that he does not agree with.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2684] 
4.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What reports if any has he received commenting on the outcome of the United States - New Zealand partnership dialogue held in Washington recently? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 I have received a number of reports all favourable. I think the mood of the participants at the dialogue was best summed up by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which stated that the event was “an overwhelming positive and can only help to create renewed understandings which will ultimately benefit New Zealand business.” I think the dialogue did move the relationship forward in a way that was really helped by the delegates from this country taking a “New Zealand Incorporated” approach. 
Dianne Yates 
: What level of support emerged from the American side to strengthen the relationship? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think there was strong high-level support from the American side which did succeed in taking the relationship forward. In particular I welcomed the strong support that was received from assistant secretary of State Chris Hill for the relationship and the very strong comments that came from the president of the US Chamber of Commerce Tom Donohue who was very much in favour of a free-trade agreement. But most important I think was the ground-breaking article co-authored by Richard Armitage and Randy Shriver in the  
Asian Wall Street Journal 
. That came out very strongly in favour of a free-trade agreement and a closer defence and security relationship with New Zealand. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Bring back Winston! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If Mr Tau Henare has anything to say I invite him to ask a question. 
Dianne Yates 
: To what extent will the dialogue help to achieve a free-trade agreement and closer security cooperation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think it was a step in the right direction. In trade it builds on other positive support that New Zealand has received and in particular the very positive letter from Senators John McCain and John Sununu to the President in support of a free-trade agreement. The National Association of Manufacturers has also put New Zealand in the top five of the countries it wants a free-trade agreement with. However it is true that there are time and resource constraints with the United States Trade Representative and that means our negotiations have to be seen as a medium as well as a short-term objective. Briefly on the security front I think the fact that New Zealand works very closely with the United States on counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation—and that point was highlighted—also helped with the relationship between the partners at the partnership dialogue. I would like also to congratulate National members on their positive support for the Government’s position in that regard.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2683] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect Mr Heatley lost his chance. You moved to question No. 4. There are punishments in this Parliament for being asleep not on the job and not being focused. He has just learnt them. [ 
Interruption 
] If he wants any advice on that he should ask Tau Henare—he is an expert on it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I am sure the member’s attention was straying for just a moment. I ask Mr Heatley to please ask his question.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2683] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I call question No. 3 Phil Heatley. Question No. 4 then Dianne Yates. Oh the member wants to ask his question question No. 3.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:630;Page:2679] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I would remind members of course that holding replies are acceptable in principle but I am very happy to look into specific instances. If you would like to refer those to me I will follow them up immediately.
Power Simon: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Power Simon: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:630;Page:2679] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Following on from the shadow Leader of the House’s comments I seek your assistance in respect of written questions Nos 04226 04227 04228 and 04229. Each of those was an individual question to the Minister of Corrections asking for the original target budget for each of the four prisons. The response I had was that the information required to answer those questions could not be collated in the time allowed which was 12 days. It seems very odd that that department had no idea of the original target budgets for those prisons—and it had 12 days to answer. Madam Speaker I seek your assistance to get action from Ministers who are using this excuse which on the basis that the information should be readily available to those Ministers clearly has no merit.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:630;Page:2679] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I will certainly look into that immediately.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:630;Page:2679] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I bring to your attention an issue that appears to be arising more frequently. It is to do with written questions that are submitted to Ministers. A number of Ministers are now replying that they cannot answer the question in a particular time. It is becoming a little ridiculous. Recently when a question that had previously been asked of a Minister was asked of him again he simply replied that he had previously answered that question and gave the number of it and when the answer previously given was looked up it was found that it had been that he could not answer the question in the time allowed. So the Minister was asked the question twice and he had been able to dodge answering it on both occasions. It would seem to me that that is not playing according to the Standing Orders and is not being at all reasonable about the accountability that Ministers have to this House. Madam Speaker I would ask you to consider ruling that Ministers should wherever possible either answer in the time frame available or indicate a time by which they may answer that question as used to be the case.
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:630;Page:2679] 
Wednesday 3 May 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I bring to your attention an issue that appears to be arising more frequently. It is to do with written questions that are submitted to Ministers. A number of Ministers are now replying that they cannot answer the question in a particular time. It is becoming a little ridiculous. Recently when a question that had previously been asked of a Minister was asked of him again he simply replied that he had previously answered that question and gave the number of it and when the answer previously given was looked up it was found that it had been that he could not answer the question in the time allowed. So the Minister was asked the question twice and he had been able to dodge answering it on both occasions. It would seem to me that that is not playing according to the Standing Orders and is not being at all reasonable about the accountability that Ministers have to this House. Madam Speaker I would ask you to consider ruling that Ministers should wherever possible either answer in the time frame available or indicate a time by which they may answer that question as used to be the case. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I will certainly look into that immediately. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Following on from the shadow Leader of the House’s comments I seek your assistance in respect of written questions Nos 04226 04227 04228 and 04229. Each of those was an individual question to the Minister of Corrections asking for the original target budget for each of the four prisons. The response I had was that the information required to answer those questions could not be collated in the time allowed which was 12 days. It seems very odd that that department had no idea of the original target budgets for those prisons—and it had 12 days to answer. Madam Speaker I seek your assistance to get action from Ministers who are using this excuse which on the basis that the information should be readily available to those Ministers clearly has no merit. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I would remind members of course that holding replies are acceptable in principle but I am very happy to look into specific instances. If you would like to refer those to me I will follow them up immediately.
Mackey Moana: Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2886] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am sure that the Hon Trevor Mallard who has just come down to the House will be very interested to know in hindsight that that member was showing him respect over all those years. I am very happy to stand up in this debate and support the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. 
I was not on the Education and Science Committee at the time this bill went through it but of course the issues around early childhood education were such a pivotal part of the election campaign that just about every member who stood for Parliament in the last campaign knows a fair bit about it. I think one of the things that came out in the campaign was that New Zealand seriously lags behind other countries and has been very slow to recognise the importance of early childhood education when it comes to putting our preschool children into early childhood education. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Who was the education Minister then? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well the education Minister then interestingly was the member who has just resumed his seat. Bill English gets very very angry about education and I sometimes wonder whether he thinks there is anything good about our education system at all. I found it very interesting that he very derisively insinuated that teachers are not an important part of the education sector. Parents are important; yes they are. Students are important; yes they are. But I say to the National Party that so too are teachers. 
The Labour-led Government listens to all parts of the education sector. We like to listen to every stakeholder and to get all opinions. It is very true that when one is looking at an education issue one should not go just to teachers or just to principals or just to parents because one will not get a well-rounded view. I know that National Party members do not like teachers because they think teachers support only the Labour Party. I would suggest that that is perhaps not as true as Mr English believes it to be. To keep running down our education system and to keep running down our system of assessment does more damage than the good that National members think it potentially does them when it comes to winning over voters to their party. One area of policy where I think it would be nice to get a bit more cross-party agreement if on nothing else is that we should not be telling teenagers when this is patently untrue that their qualification is absolutely worthless. 
One of the issues that does not get talked about much which I am very pleased to see in the bill is of course the ability of the student loan scheme to recover money from the recipients of bonded scholarships should they default on their obligations. I think that means that the bonded scholarship scheme will be held in much higher regard. It will have a lot more credibility and that will mean there is no temptation to default on such an agreement in the future.
Mark Ron: Personal Explanations — Criminal Procedure Bill—Incorrect Reference 
Mark Ron: Personal Explanations — Criminal Procedure Bill—Incorrect Reference 
[Volume:631;Page:2882] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I apologise to the Minister for interrupting him but I need to put the record straight in relation to my speech on the Criminal Procedure Bill. I referred to my colleague Dail Jones as QC and I meant to say QSO. I apologise for the mistake. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that.
Personal Explanations — Criminal Procedure Bill—Incorrect Reference 
Personal Explanations — Criminal Procedure Bill—Incorrect Reference 
[Volume:631;Page:2882] 
Personal Explanations 
Criminal Procedure Bill—Incorrect Reference 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I apologise to the Minister for interrupting him but I need to put the record straight in relation to my speech on the Criminal Procedure Bill. I referred to my colleague Dail Jones as QC and I meant to say QSO. I apologise for the mistake. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that.
Maharey Steve: Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Maharey Steve: Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2882] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill does two important things. It implements— 
Debate interrupted.
Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2882] 
Education Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill does two important things. It implements— 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Criminal Procedure Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Criminal Procedure Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2882] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Law and Order Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Question agreed to. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:2864] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 2(1) be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 2A agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Hodgson Pete: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:2864] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Field Taito Phillip: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:2863] 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:2858] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:2858] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Gosche Mark: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Gosche Mark: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:2856] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Dyson Ruth: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:2855] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I take a brief call to respond once again to the single point the previous speaker raised which was his call for an apology. The member estimated that there are over 8500 self-employed people who have not received paid parental leave in the last little while since the Labour-led Government introduced paid parental leave. What about the 26010 self-employed people—by his calculations—plus the thousands more employees who did not receive one day of paid parental leave during the 9 long years that that member’s party was in Government let alone the 14 weeks that our Government has given employees and now self-employed people? For that member to come in here and ask for an apology from me needs a little rewriting of history. The member’s memory may be foggy around that time—for whatever reason I am not sure—but 26010 self-employed people missed out on paid parental leave completely in the 9 years that Mr Blumsky’s party was in Government—as did every single employee. 
That was because National members oppose paying paid parental leave for everyone. They opposed it on the introduction of the bill in March 2002 they opposed it when we amended it in 2004. The point for which I am very sorry is that I wish we had been the Government during those 9 years because we would have had paid parental leave for the employees and self-employed of New Zealand a lot earlier. 
This is a moment of progress on the bill. We still have some people who will not be able to access it and we still have it for only 14 weeks. That is not as good as what other countries have and we will continue to look at the gaps where those people miss out—as I promised to do when I made a commitment to the House in 2004 and subsequently introduced this legislation in 2005. 
I think the National members should stop trying to rewrite history and just admit they got it wrong. Otherwise they should say to the thousands of New Zealanders who are puzzling over their position that even though they are now demanding an apology from us for not extending paid parental leave earlier they still opposed the original legislation which we are now extending. Mr Blumsky cannot have it both ways; he either supports paid parental leave or he does not. He cannot have it both ways. The public of New Zealand know that National opposes paid parental leave and we will continue to remind them—despite those members’ performances in the House today.
Mackey Moana: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:2848] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Donnelly Brian: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:2844] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has always strongly supported the principle of paid parental leave. I mention the word “principle” because we did not always agree with the details of the legislation that went through the House earlier. David Bennett raised the question of why the self-employed were not included in that legislation. I say to David who is a new member that when we sat through hearings on the legislation it was very obvious that the philosophy of many of the instigators behind the paid parental leave movement was that it was all about employment rights. That is what drove them. 
From New Zealand First’s point of view that is not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is how we can create policy settings that will ensure the best quality of the next generation and how we build a nation that will maintain its strength and competitiveness. One of the things we well know is that the strength of the bond that is established between parents and child in the first few months endures over a whole lifetime. Yet what had occurred in our society was that employment conditions had become such that many parents—particularly mothers—had to go back into paid employment within weeks of their child being born. We saw that that was not creating the healthiest society and that we needed policy settings that would allow for a different approach. 
So New Zealand First from the outset has always argued that the self-employed should be involved in and included in this type of legislation because of the philosophy we are attacking it from. It is about how we continue to rebuild and get the best nation into the future. So we are very very pleased that the sorts of statements we were making back in the time when the initial legislation came through have been finally heard. 
I make one comment before I finish. Over this weekend I will be fortunate enough to have my first grandchild born. I am very very pleased that the parents of my first grandchild Catherine will receive the benefits of the provisions that are in the paid parental leave legislation that has been put through in the last few years.
Tisch Lindsay: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:2843] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There have been three outstanding speeches from National—my colleague Dr Mapp took a second call—and in that time it became very evident that National was supporting this bill. Yet— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member be seated please. I am on my feet. The member is starting to lead into a debatable issue and that can be taken care of when I call the next speaker.
Dyson Ruth: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:2842] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I would like to take the opportunity for a brief call to clarify the questions that both Mr Tisch and Dr Mapp have raised which demonstrate two things to me. The first is their continued opposition to paid parental leave in principle which I find totally gobsmacking. I cannot believe that a party can continue in this day and age to oppose financial support to a new mother primarily or a new father when a new baby is either born or adopted into their family. This provision is a fundamental point of social security for families and for the National Party to continue to oppose it and at the same time demand the extension of the provision really beggars belief. 
I will clarify the point raised by Dr Mapp and I do trust that he was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because for a member to have gone through the entire select committee process and still remain so ignorant of such a basic point in the legislation would be of major concern. So perhaps he was not on the committee; I certainly hope so. The point is that it is not 6 months after the birth of a previous child; it is 6 months after the person has returned from parental leave and parental leave is still unfortunately a lot longer than the current provisions for paid parental leave. It is not in Europe; in Europe they have 14 months paid parental leave. In New Zealand we have 14 weeks. So obviously if we were saying someone could have a child 6 months after the birth of a previous child we would be challenging more than just the legislative framework in New Zealand! 
Darren Hughes 
: That’s politically correct! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes that would be PC gone mad I hasten to add. So it is 6 months after the return from parental leave which is obviously a lot longer than the paid parental leave provisions. 
I conclude by saying that this bill is a very good extension of our existing paid parental leave scheme. We will continue to review and extend it. I would like to know by the end of the Committee stage of the debate—or if it is not possible for the National Party to get its head together and agree by that time maybe by the third reading stage which will hopefully be later this week—whether the National Party still opposes this scheme and whether it will repeal it if it is ever in the unfortunate position of being the Government of New Zealand. In the end National members cannot have it both ways. They cannot continue to oppose a scheme in principle call for its extension and then say they will vote for one part of it. National is either for it or against it and New Zealanders deserve to know what the National Party if it were ever leading the Government would do with this paid parental leave extension.
Tizard Judith: Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill — First Reading 
Tizard Judith: Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2839] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: I move  
That the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill be considered by the Government Administration Committee 
referred to Government Administration Committee 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 July 2006. 
Motion agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Police—Pepper Spray 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Police—Pepper Spray 
[Volume:631;Page:2833] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Keith Locke seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 television footage showing a police officer pepper spraying a handcuffed man in the face. The incident is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of the Government but I do not agree that it requires the urgent attention of the House by way of urgent debate today. [ 
Interruption 
] Would members please be quiet. I am reading out a ruling which members would like to hear I believe. Inquiries into this matter are known to be in train and it would be premature to accept an application for debate in those circumstances. The application is therefore declined.
Urgent Debates Declined — Police—Pepper Spray 
Urgent Debates Declined — Police—Pepper Spray 
[Volume:631;Page:2833] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Police—Pepper Spray 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Keith Locke seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 television footage showing a police officer pepper spraying a handcuffed man in the face. The incident is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of the Government but I do not agree that it requires the urgent attention of the House by way of urgent debate today. [ 
Interruption 
] Would members please be quiet. I am reading out a ruling which members would like to hear I believe. Inquiries into this matter are known to be in train and it would be premature to accept an application for debate in those circumstances. The application is therefore declined.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Urgent Debates—Criteria 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Urgent Debates—Criteria 
[Volume:631;Page:2833] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contributions. As I indicated at the time the decision was made after consideration of both the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. For the assistance of members however I suggest that they refer to Speakers’ rulings 165/2 through to 165/6 and also 166/1 and 166/5. Of course I will give serious consideration to any application that is made for an urgent debate.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Urgent Debates—Criteria 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Urgent Debates—Criteria 
[Volume:631;Page:2833] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Please accept that we are not relitigating your decision. We are aware that at some point the State Services Commission will bring out a report that may or may not be presented to Parliament. It will most certainly be in the public arena. At that point we would need to know whether that constituted a matter of significant importance such that it would merit a debate in the House.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Urgent Debates—Criteria 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Urgent Debates—Criteria 
[Volume:631;Page:2832] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I suggest strongly to you that that would not be an appropriate course of action for you to follow for a very simple reason. On this matter the decision by the Speaker is final and there is no possibility of debate around that decision. While there is a set of criteria that must be met in the first instance—whether it involves the responsibility of a Minister etc.—at the end of the day the question of whether time should be set aside by the House is a matter for decision solely by you. If you start laying out supposedly objective criteria as to the means by which that decision has been arrived at it could be for only one purpose—for people to question the application of those criteria.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Urgent Debates—Criteria 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Urgent Debates—Criteria 
[Volume:631;Page:2832] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you would consider giving the House a written consideration of what you think constitutes the aspect of “importance” when it comes to snap debates. Given the way in which the issue around the Telecom leak has progressed over the last number of days I think it would be helpful for us to know what you would consider the matter of importance to be and what criteria you would use. We note that you indicated last week that the request for a debate met a number of conditions but fell short on that point.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:2829] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to add two words to question 11 for clarity. It appears that the two words “pay for” were left out of the question which does not make it very clear when one first reads it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to alter that question so it makes sense. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:2818] 
3.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How long has Taito Phillip Field got to respond to the draft inquiry report of Noel Ingram QC into alleged conflicts of interest? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 That is a matter for Mr Ingram QC to determine. He is not directed by me. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is the Prime Minister telling this House that as far as she is concerned Taito Phillip Field has as long as he likes to respond to the draft report into wrongdoings he is alleged to have committed? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I said no such thing. I said that it was a matter for Mr Ingram QC to determine. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Has the Prime Minister or anyone in her office or in the Government discussed with Noel Ingram QC or Gareth Kayes this year any aspect of the inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest involving Taito Phillip Field; if so what was she or they told? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I certainly have not spoken with Mr Ingram. To the best of my knowledge I have never met him. Of course in the course of setting up the inquiry and terms of reference he was in discussion with Mr Wevers and from time to time Mr Wevers would inquire about the progress of the inquiry—in order for questions in this House to be answered. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When the Prime Minister told Parliament last week that she had not read the draft report had she or any member of her staff or of the Government received any briefing or advice on the content of the draft report; if so when did that first take place? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No advice has been received from Mr Ingram. As the member will be well aware because it is in the paper this morning Mr Field has a copy of the report. He is entitled to keep colleagues apprised of that if he wishes. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What meetings or discussions has the Prime Minister or any member of her staff or of the Government had with Taito Phillip Field since his receipt of that draft report? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no responsibility for Mr Field as a member of Parliament. He is entitled as a member to have discussions with colleagues if he wishes. I am not responsible for that.
Turner Judy: Points of Order — PlunketLine—Funding 
Turner Judy: Points of Order — PlunketLine—Funding 
[Volume:631;Page:2815] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move as written in members’ notice of motion No. 3 that this House calls on the Government to ensure funding to enable PlunketLine to continue its service to young New Zealand families. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Points of Order — PlunketLine—Funding 
Points of Order — PlunketLine—Funding 
[Volume:631;Page:2815] 
Points of Order 
PlunketLine—Funding 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move as written in members’ notice of motion No. 3 that this House calls on the Government to ensure funding to enable PlunketLine to continue its service to young New Zealand families. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Cullen Michael: Motions — Beaconsfield Gold Mine—Rescue of Miners 
Cullen Michael: Motions — Beaconsfield Gold Mine—Rescue of Miners 
[Volume:631;Page:2815] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the House expresses its pleasure and relief at the successful rescue this morning of Brant Webb and Todd Russell from the Beaconsfield Gold Mine in Tasmania after 14 days trapped underground and extends its sympathies to the family of Larry Knight who died in the mine collapse. 
Motion agreed to.
Motions — Beaconsfield Gold Mine—Rescue of Miners 
Motions — Beaconsfield Gold Mine—Rescue of Miners 
[Volume:631;Page:2815] 
Tuesday 9 May 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
Motions 
Beaconsfield Gold Mine—Rescue of Miners 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the House expresses its pleasure and relief at the successful rescue this morning of Brant Webb and Todd Russell from the Beaconsfield Gold Mine in Tasmania after 14 days trapped underground and extends its sympathies to the family of Larry Knight who died in the mine collapse. 
Motion agreed to.