edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:662;Page:10662] 
7. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What proportion of New Zealand water take consents are currently measured and how will the Government’s regulations to require metering improve this? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Privatisation; privatisation.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Ha ha! If we meter the water they cry “privatisation” eh? Only 31 percent of water by volume is currently measured. New regulations announced on Friday will progressively improve that to 92 percent by 2012 and to 98 percent by 2016. The regulations apply to larger takes of over 5 litres per second which is the equivalent of the use of about 250 homes. Although 39 percent of consents are smaller than that they take only 2 percent of the water by volume so the metering costs for those cannot be justified. 
Colin King 
: Why is the Government proposing to use national regulations to require metering rather than using the national environmental standard or leaving it to regional councils? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: If we left it until water consents come up for renewal under a national environmental standard it would take more than 20 years before we would get reliable information on water extractions. That is far too slow. The alternative is to leave it to regional councils to review all individual consents which is estimated to cost many millions of dollars in paperwork. The national regulation approach is the most efficient and the least costly way in which we can get reliable information on water takes and as a consequence deliver a step change in freshwater management. 
Brendon Burns 
: If consent holders’ water meters show unused allocation does the Minister believe that they should be able to sell those surpluses at whatever price they can command; and is that not privatising the common right all of us have as New Zealanders to our water? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No not at all. I do not agree with that. I say to the member that if we are to improve the management of water—something I think every member of this House would agree we need to do—surely we need to measure it and that is exactly what this Government is doing. 
Colin King 
: What number of water meters will need to be installed to meet the new requirements and what is the likely cost? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The regulations will affect 11000 resource consents that take water. Large consents—over 20 litres per second—will be required to have meters by 2012. Consents for 10 litres per second will require meters by 2014 and the smaller 5-litre consents will require meters by 2016. The initiative is expected to come at an overall cost of about $40 million but that needs to be considered in the context of water being worth over $5 billion a year to the New Zealand economy. The regulations contain pragmatic exemptions to ensure that metering is required only where it is necessary and where its cost will help us to improve water management.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:662;Page:10707] 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussions with the Business Committee I seek leave for members’ notice of motion No. 7 in the name of Phil Twyford concerning nuclear disarmament to be set down as members’ order of the day No. 4 on Wednesday 5 May 2010 despite Standing Order 96 and for there to be a debate of seven speeches of up to 5 minutes each on the question that the motion be agreed to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10694] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10652] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 stand part. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Hughes Darren: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10652] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With the time now being after 5 to 6 are you not required to report progress to the House? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No once the voting has been commenced it has to be concluded.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10652] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10652] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You are in the middle of a closure motion. I think you have to put a vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We have completed the vote on the closure motion but we have not commenced the next vote. I have to put the question on clause 1 then on clause 2.
Mallard Trevor: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10652] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The question I have is this: do I have the right to withdraw it or do I need to seek leave? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You need to seek leave. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I seek leave to withdraw my amendment in order to not put the Crown to cost. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. The amendment in that member’s name is withdrawn and the time has come for me to report progress.
Hughes Darren: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10651] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The point that I think has been missed is that the bill has been going through the Committee stage for some weeks and it is a question of whether there were any amendments to Part 1 or Part 2 of this particular bill. I am not sure whether there were any Minister’s amendments or amendments from the Opposition that affected Part 1 or Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There were none. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: So the bill is as it stands. So Mr Mallard can withdraw the amendment?
Mallard Trevor: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10651] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that I will be testing you a little bit here— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes it looks like it! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —but I have a very quick question I would like you to answer. Were there any other amendments to the bill? I am asking whether the passing of my amendment would require an extra printing of the bill. I would be slightly anxious about incurring any cost to the Crown in that way. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: If there are no amendments to the bill it will not be reprinted. If any amendments are passed the bill will be reprinted. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Further to that can we have an indication about whether the—what is it called—the pre - Royal assent amendment will be done before or after the third reading? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: My understanding is that if this amendment in your name is passed the bill will be reprinted before the third reading. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sorry; that was not the question. It was the other way round—whether the typographical error if it is an error can be corrected before the third reading. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am advised that it is after the third reading.
Tremain Chris: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10651] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mallard Trevor: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10650] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. None of us is suggesting that the bill should have been reprinted at this point. I think the question is whether it is automatic as we move to the third reading that we will get a reprint of the bill with the 2010 date in it at that stage or whether there is the power in the Clerk’s Office to amend the bill on the way to the Royal assent. The Minister has nodded her head at both and if we had a ruling from someone that that was going to occur we would have finished here about 25 minutes ago I think. My question is: is it an automatic process— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Let me respond. It is a normal practice a standard feature of a bill that normally it is adjusted when the bill is sent for Royal assent. That is the normal process.
Mallard Trevor: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10650] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move that the Speaker be recalled in order to rule on the question of whether the change of date is a clerical error that can be corrected by the Clerk’s Office or whether an amendment is necessary. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well the member has moved that motion and I am bound to do that. But the member has not asked the Chair for a ruling on that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I apologise for being premature. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: So what are you intending to do? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The question on which I would like you to rule is whether the changing of the date is a matter of clerical or administrative or—I forget the wording under Standing Order 307. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Clerical or typographical. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes; whether it is clerical or typographical and can be corrected. I am working on the assumption that it is not. But I would like your opinion and then we can see. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am happy to say this is not a matter upon which the Chair would normally rule. A bill normally reflects the date of introduction. It is not unusual for a bill to go through its passage and on to the Committee stage while still retaining a date that may be from a previous year—that is not unusual. Standing Order 307 does have that provision as Mr Hipkins said and that is when those anomalies are clarified—when the bill is printed. Does the member still want to recall the Speaker?
Tremain Chris: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10648] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tolley Anne: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10640] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 When this bill was last debated I was outlining the position of King’s High School Dunedin and the building of its performing arts centre which the Hon Trevor Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper 99 addresses. I was pointing out that the school built a performing arts centre that was 60 percent larger than was required for a school of its size. It had paid a rate that was 168 percent higher than the industry benchmark rate for this type of facility. It paid almost $4.5 million for the centre compared with the ministry’s current valuation of $1.2 million. The situation the school is in now of course is that it took out a loan to complete the building of the centre. I am advised that the financial position of the school is healthy and that it is not in any trouble. I understand that it has investments of about $374000 in the bank so there does not seem to be any immediate reason financially for us to take this extraordinary action here today. 
It is also unclear whether the change that the Hon Trevor Mallard has made in his Supplementary Order Paper would resolve the issue that the Ministry of Education would be in breach of the Public Finance Act 1989 if it provided funding in the clear knowledge that it would be used for a purpose other than which it had been appropriated for. So the point is made that the clause is still vague and creates some ambiguity. I repeat that allowing one school board to use 5-yearly agreement funding for a different purpose is a highly likely way of raising expectations across the sector that similar provisions would apply to all school boards. This is not a good way to make policy. It is policy on the hoof made around particular circumstances and for that reason the Government does not support the Supplementary Order Paper.
Coleman Jonathan: Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Coleman Jonathan: Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10639] 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: I move  
That the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
.
Vote: Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10639] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10637] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.
Vote: Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10640] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Lee Melissa: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Lee Melissa: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10633] 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 When the debate on the Television New Zealand Bill was interrupted I was talking about the driving force behind content and saying that commissioners had to rely on the popularity of certain genres. In recent times we have had a lot of reality television on our screens. Reality TV is not exactly my favourite type of programme but there is a place for those programmes. Viewers control the commissioning of that genre because programme commissioners would not commission things that were not popular. That is the broadcaster’s prerogative. If people decided to turn off the channel the type of programming would definitely change and very quickly. 
That brings me to the Platinum Television Fund. This money was ring-fenced for the charter commitments of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and it is now available as contestable funding through New Zealand On Air. The $15.1 million a year for projects to screen on any of New Zealand’s six free-to-air broadcasters with preference for prime-time programming was a welcome move for programme makers. This bill will make sure that the function of TVNZ is to be a successful national television and digital media company that provides a range of content and services on a choice of delivery platform and maintains its commercial performance. Without New Zealand content I guess that TVNZ would definitely not be New Zealand television. 
I take this opportunity to say that we have a wonderful Minister of Broadcasting in Jonathan Coleman. I also take this opportunity to offer my congratulations to my learned colleague Tau Henare. I just found out that he has become a grandfather for the second time. I commend this bill to the House.
Bridges Simon: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Bridges Simon: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10630] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 We have heard some erudite and learned speeches this afternoon but none was better than the speech made by Lynne Pillay. She made some very good points about the fact that we are getting a unified Electoral Commission and she said that she cannot wait for the next election to try it out. I think that is fine; that is good. All I am saying to members on the other side is to make sure they are not in the mid to high 30s on the list. In fact Jacinda Ardern Maryan Street and Carmel Sepuloni— 
Grant Robertson 
: Don’t say that with Michael Woodhouse sitting in front of you. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Grant Robertson is all right; he has a seat. He should be all right. But the other three members should keep out of the high 30s on the list. 
One of my favourite movies as a young lawyer was  
The Castle 
. I particularly enjoyed the scene where the provincial lawyer came out to visit—I have been a provincial lawyer and there is nothing wrong with them—and was asked what principle he was relying on. He replied that it was the constitution it was the Mabo decision it was the vibe. Being a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee was sometimes a bit like that. We had a sort of vibe there about whether we needed to have an independent Crown entity or an Officer of Parliament. Lynne Pillay was operating on the vibe principle actually. 
It was very clear to us that perhaps what we needed was an Officer of Parliament. But we heard from some eminent legal academics and practitioners including David McGee QC and it became very clear to us quite quickly that having an independent Crown entity as the original bill had provided for was the right model; that is what we have followed. It was important though that we worked our way through the vibe and that we acted in a multiparty way. We brought everyone on board; that is what we did. We now have first-class legislation. 
The Hon John Carter gave if I may say so a very learned speech. I know he wrote it himself; he has thought a lot about this issue. I commend this bill to the House.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10621] 
3. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee 
: When will the Law and Order Committee report back on the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill? 
SANDRA GOUDIE (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee): 
 The bill is due to be reported back to the House on 21 October 2010. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will the Ministry of Justice which is the Government agency responsible for all matters pertaining to an election be invited to advise on that bill before the committee reports back to the House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Again I believe that that is a committee matter. Therefore the question is out of order.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10620] 
2. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee 
: Has the Law and Order Committee met to consider the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill? 
SANDRA GOUDIE (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee): 
 Yes. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Which Government agency or agencies were appointed as advisers on that bill? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: The matter— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to be a little careful here. Did I hear the member ask which Government agencies have been appointed as advisers? I believe that that is a committee decision and the member cannot ask a supplementary question like that. I will give him one more chance to ask a supplementary question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I am happy for it to stand on the record. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10619] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: Allowing more local input into licensing decisions in all communities is one of the recommendations in the Law Commission’s report on alcohol. The Government is currently considering the report and will respond to it within 120 days.
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10619] 
11. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: My question is to the Minister of Justice—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is just not helpful. I have called Rahui Katene. She is at the back of the House. The front-bench Ministers should desist from their ongoing interjections about the last question. I say particularly to the Hon Trevor Mallard that that was not a helpful interjection that he made. 
RAHUI KATENE 
: When will the Government put legislation in place to limit the number of alcohol outlets in poor communities and give communities a say as to whether they support having an alcohol outlet?
Bridges Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Bridges Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10613] 
7. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Has she received any reports on operations by the police to stamp out the illicit drugs trade in New Zealand? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. I congratulate the police on Operation Lime which culminated this week in the arrest of over 250 alleged offenders who are facing more than 700 charges. This Government has passed a raft of new policies aimed at tackling criminal gangs and the drugs trade and we have made sure we have enough police to carry out the organised crime operations of this nature. We are sending a very clear message to those who manufacture and sell drugs in our community that this Government and the police are determined to shut down their activities and we will use every tool at our disposal to do so. 
Simon Bridges 
: What steps are being taken to ensure that any profits obtained by illegal activity are not retained by offenders? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am very pleased to inform the House that the police will be starting proceedings under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act which was passed by this Parliament last year. As a result it is likely that any assets or profits associated with illegal activity will be confiscated. Since the Act was passed the police have identified more than $36 million worth of assets believed to have been obtained through criminal activity. They include cash houses vehicles and other property. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Has the Minister been advised of the outcome of investigations into organised criminal activity in the Dunedin area? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. Last week the police raided the premises of the Mongrel Mob gang in Middleton Road following a 6-month-long investigation. As part of Operation Rocket the police made 19 arrests and seized the gang’s premises under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act. Seven of those arrested were patched gang members and two were presidents from separate chapters.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10646] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10605] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a paper from the Minister for Climate Change Issues to Cabinet dated 14 September 2009 containing the words referred to in quote marks in question No. 5. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10604] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I suggest that you reflect on the words you used in respect of Mr Brownlee when you said that “It does not take a lot of intelligence to [spot] the difference …”. I thought that comment was a little gratuitous and could cause disorder in the House. I thought that Mr Brownlee was understandably taken aback at that comment on your part and that it was perhaps less than wise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member’s point. When my ruling is being questioned members risk that kind of comment. I had ruled.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10604] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a separate point of order relating to question No. 1 and I delayed raising it because I thought my colleague would raise it. It is the question of whether it was appropriate for Paula Bennett to interject “She might like it.” referring to the 78-year-old woman who was being asked to do work or training while my colleague was seeking leave to table those documents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me. I did not hear the interjection. I think it is not a major matter that needs to take my attention.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10604] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is rather unusual for the Leader of the House to be disciplined by the Speaker so I will not do that but I warn him that there is a clear difference. The opinion in question No. 5 is a quoted opinion. The opinion inserted into question No. 2 is the questioner’s opinion and questioners cannot put opinions in questions.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10604] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will take that risk. Mr Speaker you have now ruled that something that is a matter of opinion is out of order in a question. Simply because an opinion has quotation marks round it does not change the fact that it is an opinion. The Minister for Climate Change Issues is being asked in question No. 5 to confirm something. Asking a Minister to confirm something in this fashion is no different from asking the Minister of Finance whether he can confirm that Budget 2009 was a success. You can be as pedantic as you like—
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10604] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are we still on the same matter? I have— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that matter is not being considered further by the Speaker. Unless the member is raising a separate point of order he is trifling with the Chair.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10604] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will then have effectively ruled question No. 5 out of order. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker—
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10603] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What then do you make of question No. 5 which also offers an opinion in the body of the question? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not going to take further debate on this. I have ruled on the matter and that is the end of the matter.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10603] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need further assistance on the matter at all. A question like that is out of order. It contains an opinion and opinions used in a question in that way cannot be authenticated. That does not alter the substance of the question; the substance of the question is absolutely unaltered by omitting those words that contain opinion. That is what I suggest be done. If members do not want to omit the words that contain opinion I will have to rule the question out.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10603] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I stress that I have ruled on the matter. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am a little concerned that that may in fact mean that the way in which questions are validated now changes as well. The assumption is that evidence was presented to the Clerk’s Office that used the term “the success of Budget 2009”. I am aware that one can obtain significant editorial comment from around the country that would back that up. If that is a prevailing view and if it is supported by evidence presented to the Clerk’s Office it is perfectly reasonable that it is put in a question. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Speaking to the point of order—
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10603] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I can assist the honourable member. The point of order that the Hon Darren Hughes has raised is a perfectly valid point of order. Standing Order 371(1)(b) makes it clear that questions should not contain opinions because of course opinions cannot be validated. I apologise to the House that question No. 2 has sneaked through with that opinion in it. I suggest to the House that the question that is read out omit the words “the success of” and be simply “build on Budget 2009”. In that way the opinion is omitted from the question.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:662;Page:10601] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The first point is that the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill will be read a third time next Thursday so I can confirm that it will be after question time next Thursday. As to the other matters I tell members that they will of course be dependent entirely upon how the Order Paper is formed over the next short while.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Volume:662;Page:10601] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I signal to the Leader of the House that the Opposition is very much looking forward to the third reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill and thanks him for his good communication on the passage of that bill during the course of recent weeks. I wonder whether any of the Government bills for first reading will include the Minister of Local Government’s bill that has been signalled in the media and whether we can expect that any bills that amend the Local Government Act will go through a full and proper select committee process unlike some other bills that have taken on issues of representative democracy at local government level. If the Leader of the House would let us know about that it would be useful.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10620] 
1. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Has the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee considered the petition presented in my name requesting the establishment of a commuter passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland signed by 11500 people? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 Yes. 
Sue Moroney 
: When will submissions be heard on this petition which has so much support from Hamilton? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The committee proceedings are still confidential as the committee has yet to present a report on the petition to this House.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10603] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is about the wording of questions for oral answer when they are submitted to the Clerk’s Office for approval each day. Both sides of the House try to word their questions in ways that result in a pretty simple question being put to Ministers for them to answer and try to make them free of political language. I draw your attention to the assertion made in question No. 2 which asks the Minister of Finance to talk about how something will “build on the success of Budget 2009”. Clearly of course the Government considers Budget 2009 to have been a success and I am sure that the Minister will have examples of why he thinks that. The Opposition of course would consider it to be a failure— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member was doing very well up to this point— 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I am not trying to be political; I have a suggestion.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10646] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10650] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Hon Trevor Mallard signalled to you about a motion of recall. Could you could advise the Committee at what point in this debate on the title and commencement clauses—which could have been finished a long time ago; I have come down to the House and I am surprised we are still on this as it should be completed by now—the Minister is able to clear up the whole thing by putting forward an amendment that would guillotine the need for Mr Mallard’s motion? It seems to me that she could stand up and take a 10-second call and say that that is her intention so at what point do we trigger a situation where the Minister is not able to do that and where Mr Mallard’s motion would stand? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have been at pains to point out that this is a normal procedure. The process we are involved in happens not infrequently. Bills are corrected typographically and in every respect before they receive the Royal assent. That is the normal procedure.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:662;Page:10601] 
Thursday 29 April 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next week the Government intends to make progress on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill complete the third reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill and deal with a range of other first and second readings on the Order Paper. Wednesday is set down to be a members’ day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I signal to the Leader of the House that the Opposition is very much looking forward to the third reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill and thanks him for his good communication on the passage of that bill during the course of recent weeks. I wonder whether any of the Government bills for first reading will include the Minister of Local Government’s bill that has been signalled in the media and whether we can expect that any bills that amend the Local Government Act will go through a full and proper select committee process unlike some other bills that have taken on issues of representative democracy at local government level. If the Leader of the House would let us know about that it would be useful. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The first point is that the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill will be read a third time next Thursday so I can confirm that it will be after question time next Thursday. As to the other matters I tell members that they will of course be dependent entirely upon how the Order Paper is formed over the next short while.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10604] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need further assistance. Question No. 5 contains a quote and I presume that the quote was validated. It does not take a lot of intelligence to see the difference between the word “success” in question No. 2—[ 
Interruption 
]—I am ruling on this matter—and a quote in question No. 5. I invite Chris Tremain to ask the question without the opinion—
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10651] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10651] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not sure now whether I need to seek the leave of the Committee—I certainly do not want to put the Crown to the expense of reprinting this—to withdraw my amendment.
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10620] 
12. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: How many unique visitors did the RightLight website have in its first 6 months of operation? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that the RightLight website which provides residential commercial and industrial consumers with credible and useful information on energy efficiency and lighting had 76339 unique visitors in the first 6 months of its operation. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How does this Government’s approach to energy efficiency contrast with that of the previous Government? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The previous Government was a firm believer in compulsion which was counterproductive and undermined people’s support for energy-efficiency products. This Government is focused on practical solutions that allow consumers choice but also provide them with information to help them make wise decisions. The RightLight campaign is a good example of that approach and can be contrasted quite neatly against Labour’s blanket ban on incandescent light bulbs.
Borrows Chester: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Borrows Chester: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10624] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in this debate on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. I thank the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee. This is the 13th bill we have returned to the House this term. The work of the committee and the collaboration and willingness of its members to get good results for the people of New Zealand is reflected in the number of bills we have returned. As has been well outlined by the Minister of Justice in his introduction and by the previous speaker the Hon David Parker in the consideration on this bill we went through a number of concerns and issues raised by members of the public and by learned submitters. We took all of those submissions seriously and received further advice. We went to a number of other areas to seek advice on the matters that were raised. 
The bill amalgamates into one agency the three electoral agencies that currently exist. For the reasons well outlined by the previous speaker the new Electoral Commission will be an independent Crown entity in spite of a number of submissions suggesting that that role should be an Officer of Parliament. The bill seeks to overcome current issues around duplication of work the confusion with overlapping jurisdictions the increased costs of having to deal with different Government agencies around the same issue of elections and the removal of complexity for stakeholders—that is political parties voters policy groups pressure groups and list and constituency candidates—within the framework as it currently stands. 
The submissions were very technical and we appreciate the fact that submitters went to such trouble not only in researching their well-worded submissions but also in the way in which they spoke to them in front of the committee. In any event we have ended up reporting the bill back to the House with only two significant matters in respect of the way the bill was when it was referred to us. One of those was to confirm the independent Crown entity status of the new commission and the second was the way in which the commissioners will be appointed on a basis of consensus rather than the Minister of Justice making a flat decision. I believe it is important for the integrity of future elections to have consensus around the House on who the commissioner would be and also for the various parties not only to be consulted on but also to consent to the decision. I commend the bill to the House and I thank the committee for its work.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:662;Page:10601] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next week the Government intends to make progress on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill complete the third reading of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill and deal with a range of other first and second readings on the Order Paper. Wednesday is set down to be a members’ day.
Graham Kennedy: Appointments — Chief Ombudsman and Ombudsman 
Graham Kennedy: Appointments — Chief Ombudsman and Ombudsman 
[Volume:660;Page:9111] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the reappointment of Beverley Anne Wakem as the Chief Ombudsman. Having a strong independent watchdog is vital in ensuring that our democracy functions appropriately. It is important that there are independent checks on the power of the executive especially under a Westminster system that relies heavily on convention as ours does. We simply wish her well in seeking out the truth in her work and holding those in power to account for their actions.
Foss Craig: Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Foss Craig: Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10131] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 The Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill is a good bill and I commend it to the House. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10106] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time.