edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:656;Page:5963] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 At the end of this week the House will adjourn for one week. During that time it is expected that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill will be reported back to the House. When the House resumes on Tuesday 8 September priority will be given to the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill and the first readings on the Order Paper. Wednesday 9 September is set down as a members’ day.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Finland—Audit Committee Parliament of Finland 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Finland—Audit Committee Parliament of Finland 
[Volume:656;Page:5963] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure informing the House that the Audit Committee of the Parliament of Finland led by Mr Matti Ahde the chair of the committee is present in the Speaker’s gallery. I am sure members would wish that the committee be welcomed.
Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
[Volume:656;Page:5978] 
Points of Order 
Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table an email from the Clerk’s Office today dated Thursday 27 August that states: “The minority view of the Maori Party has been pulled from the report this morning.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the draft minutes of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee meeting of last week which record that the report was deliberated on including the minority report of the Maori Party tabled by 5 p.m. that day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In light of those two documents which I had not sighted when I raised my points of order earlier today I ask you to look at that issue. I will provide the documents to you. They clearly show that the committee did deliberate and that the report includes a minority report from the Maori Party and that report should be published in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have already undertaken to look at the particular issue raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon Pete Hodgson. Obviously in doing that I will be looking at the wider issue but what I have said to the House previously is quite correct: it would appear from what we have been told that the committee’s adoption of the report was conditional. Where there is confusion about those conditions the committee has not finally agreed the report and needs to resolve the confusion. It is not a matter for this House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has been no suggestion that the committee deliberated conditionally and indeed the minutes show that that is not the case. I ask you to look into the matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member not to argue with the Speaker. 
Question time resumed.
Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
[Volume:656;Page:5971] 
Points of Order 
Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Maori Party minority report in the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee report which was deliberated on last week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to seek some advice on what the member has sought. I apologise to members; the issues that have been raised are a little unusual. Leave has been sought and there is no problem with my putting it to the House. Leave is sought to table a minority report of the select committee. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is objection. 
Question time resumed.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:656;Page:5963] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] Those members just lack politeness; it is unbelievable. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You’ve only worked 1 day this week! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well if I have worked only 1 day this week it is 2 days longer than Darren Hughes; that is for sure. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is the last day of term. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I seek leave of the House to sit on the ringing of the bell on Thursday 10 September 2009 following an official luncheon for the general secretary of the Communist Party of Viet Nam. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:656;Page:5963] 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 At the end of this week the House will adjourn for one week. During that time it is expected that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill will be reported back to the House. When the House resumes on Tuesday 8 September priority will be given to the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill and the first readings on the Order Paper. Wednesday 9 September is set down as a members’ day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I wonder if the Leader of the House could confirm whether it is correct that urgency will be used to progress both the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill and the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill and furthermore whether he could confirm to the House or offer to the House the ability for a stand-alone debate within the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill on the issue of Maori representation on that council. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The Government views the passing of both those bills as something that will be considered somewhat urgently by the nation let alone this House. It remains to be determined exactly how it is progressed through this House but those bills will be progressed during the next session. As for the stand-alone debate the members know that there are ways in which he might request that of your good self Mr Speaker. Therefore the decision is most certainly out of my hands.
Visitors — Finland—Audit Committee Parliament of Finland 
Visitors — Finland—Audit Committee Parliament of Finland 
[Volume:656;Page:5963] 
Thursday 27 August 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Finland—Audit Committee Parliament of Finland 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure informing the House that the Audit Committee of the Parliament of Finland led by Mr Matti Ahde the chair of the committee is present in the Speaker’s gallery. I am sure members would wish that the committee be welcomed.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:658;Page:7468] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday 28 October and for questions to be lodged in the normal manner pursuant to Standing Order 372. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. Before I ask the Clerk of the House to read out the next Government order of the day I require the assistance of a Temporary Speaker. I have asked the Hon Darren Hughes to fill that role.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:658;Page:7468] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Smith Nick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7450] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee consider the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 12 February 2010 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during questions for oral answer) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189 190(1)(b) and (c).
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7486] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 5. 
Report adopted.
Tisch Lindsay: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7485] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7485] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 5. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7485] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 5. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7485] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 5. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Guy Nathan: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7478] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Although it may not be apparent from its title the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill expands the ability of police to collect and use DNA samples to help solve and prevent more crime which is a big focus of the National Government. This is because in many cases DNA technology provides more possibilities to obtain evidence from crime scenes than traditional fingerprint searches. 
The bill will be brought into effect in two phases. The first phase will allow a DNA sample to be taken when the police intend to charge a person with a relevant offence as defined in the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. The relevant offences will be expanded to include minor offences that have a link to more serious offending and offences where DNA is often left at the crime scene. This phase will be brought into effect in July 2010 to allow time for the police to finalise operational guidelines and train their officers and also to assist the Institute of Environmental Science and Research to prepare to manage their increased workload. 
In the second phase the power to take a DNA sample will be extended for adults to all imprisonable offences. This will be brought into effect by Order in Council following a broad review of the operation of the Act and the new power. It is my intention that full implementation will be achieved by the end of 2011.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7478] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 5. 
Schedule agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7478] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 5. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7478] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Guy Nathan: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7469] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 2 implements the second stage of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill by extending the provisions in Part 1 that apply to those adults suspected of committing a relevant offence to those suspected of committing any imprisonable offence. This part also makes the District Court the court to which applications under the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act are made rather than the High Court and provides for a mandatory retention period of 10 years for DNA profiles from adults who are convicted for imprisonable offences that are not relevant offences. This staged approach is to allow police the time to develop guidelines and train staff and will also assist the Institute of Environmental Science and Research to cater for the increased workload. 
As a result of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s input Part 2 of the bill has undergone three notable changes. I would like to make some comments on those. The first is that the range of offences for which it is possible to collect DNA from a young person will not be expanded to include all imprisonable offences as for adults. As it applies to young people the new power will be available only where the young person is suspected of a relevant offence to ensure that only the most serious young offenders are subject to the new power. 
Secondly the select committee made a number of important amendments throughout Part 2 one of which was to include the relevant offences listed in the schedule of the Act. For example peeping or peering is a relevant offence in the schedule but it does not carry a sentence of imprisonment. As originally drafted this meant that DNA samples could not have been collected from persons suspected of committing that offence under Part 2 but could under the first phase. 
The third point I wish to make is that a new definition of “District Court” has been inserted to clarify that when judicial functions are transferred to the District Court they can equally be exercised by the Youth Court in cases where it has jurisdiction. 
In respect of Mr Chauvel’s amendment to require a review of the provisions in 5 years’ time members will be aware that as expressed in the explanatory note of the bill the Ministry of Justice will review the entire Act by August 2011. That review will look at the broader operation of the Act and will include how the provisions are operating and whether they should be amended. That review will be completed before the second stage of the bill is implemented.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:658;Page:7468] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was wondering whether in the brief interregnum that you are in the Chair Mr Temporary Speaker there was any particular ruling you would require us to require of you in order for you to be recorded in  
Hansard 
 as having made a ruling. Regardless of what that ruling might be I think we would be prepared to support you in that. I suppose— 
The TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Hon DARREN HUGHES) 
: I ask the honourable Minister to resume his seat. That is not a point of order. If he continues to trifle with the Chair there will be serious consequences for him.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:658;Page:7468] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that really does indicate the dilemma that the Government has. The Government has no desire to have people cooped up in Parliament for all hours debating a range of bills that although we certainly want them to be sped through the House ordinarily might not meet the criteria that the Government itself chooses to set down. However last week we picked up an extra 4 hours on the Wednesday morning. Although the House did rise around 8 p.m. which facilitated a number of members of this House attending various important functions that they were obliged to attend might I say that had we had members’ day we would not have had those 4 hours in the morning but we would likely still have lifted at around 5.55 p.m. on that particular Wednesday. All we are saying is that if members themselves wish to organise the Order Paper in a way that means that the House will not take advantage of the time set aside for members’ day then the Government will fill the void.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Urgency 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Urgency 
[Volume:658;Page:7468] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could assure the House that the Government has enough business to keep us going through urgency and that it will not do as it did on the previous occasion and raise the House at 8.05 p.m. when we had thought we were here till midnight. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is not a debating point. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: It is a question. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is a question. Well I will ask the Hon Gerry Brownlee to respond to the member.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:658;Page:7467] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That is there as a standard precaution. It goes on the end of most urgency motions. I think the member is well aware of what the Government’s intentions are and I would hope that the member understood that when the Government’s intentions have been previously signalled— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am happy with that understanding.
Hughes Darren: Urgency 
Hughes Darren: Urgency 
[Volume:658;Page:7467] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House had previously signalled the bills that were going to be part of his motion but I notice he said the first readings of any other Government bills that were introduced. I wonder whether he could give the House an explanation of that before we move to the vote.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:658;Page:7467] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill the Gangs and Organised Crimes Bill the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill and any bills into which any of those bills may be divided; the introduction and first reading of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Amendment Bill; the second reading of the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill; the second reading of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill; and the introduction and first reading of Government bills. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You mentioned the second reading of the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill; what about the Committee of the whole House? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. The second reading of the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill and the second reading of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill—those were the two points I made there. 
The Government is taking the opportunity to gain some extra hours to work on its business. It is largely driven by the fact that tomorrow should be a members’ day but those in the House will remember that a few weeks ago we had a members’ day that concluded very very early. That was largely because a number of bills had been postponed. When we look at the Order Paper and at the business to be carried out we see that it is all time-weighted so the postponement of bills means that the House finishes somewhat earlier. At the moment there are no fewer than six postponed bills on the members’ part of the Order Paper. So we are in a bit of dire situation in my opinion. Members have the opportunity to debate their own bills on a particular day but members’ own actions are preventing that course of action from taking place. So the Government is happy to step in and fill the void. 
To formalise that I say that urgency is being moved in order to gain extra sitting hours so as to enable a range of Government business to be dealt with by the House before rising for a short adjournment.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7466] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Lynne Pillay was just talking about diversity in this Parliament. I am proud to be a member of the National Party which has brought diversity to Parliament. As the first member from the ethnic community Pansy Wong came to Parliament through the National Party. The Hon Pansy Wong was the first ethnic Cabinet Minister as Minister for Ethnic Affairs a position given to her by National. So diversity came through the National Party. Labour is always talking about it but it did nothing about it. 
I stand to support the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill in its first reading. This bill will establish a new independent Crown entity to manage the electoral system and will provide the best balance of high independence with good accountability and the ability to administer electoral functions to high standards. In 1986 the report from the Royal Commission on the Electoral System recommended that Parliament’s electoral administration be merged into a single independent Crown entity. They found that the current multi-agency structure did not provide the best service to the stakeholders or a sound platform for future development. The bill also provides for the new Electoral Commission to carry out the functions of the current Chief Electoral Office and Electoral Commission. Under this legislation the new Electoral Commission will come into existence on 1 October 2010. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Quinn Paul: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Quinn Paul: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7464] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I followed the exegesis of the previous speaker Charles Chauvel and all it demonstrated was that he was able to read his Political Science 101 notes to explain this bill. 
The simple fact is that the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill is very simple. It brings order to chaos. It combines two bodies—administration is currently undertaken by the Chief Electoral Officer and the Electoral Commission—and enables them to bring the transparency and honesty that members have spoken of on both sides of the House. On this side of the House we strongly recommend it to members and to this Parliament.
Bridges Simon: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7462] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to take a call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. This legislation amends the Electoral Act 1993 which is a constitutional statute in our country. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: As I was just saying it is good to rise to take a call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. I was warming to the theme that this Government legislation is in keeping with a theme of the National-led Government of removing waste duplication complexity unnecessary cost and confusion. We are moving from a multiplicity of electoral agencies to a single one. That is very important. 
I come back to confusion because we can well imagine situations where it would be easy to be confused with a number of bodies— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes of course. Sometimes if your name’s Rick you might call yourself Phil. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Exactly. It would be easy to be confused when there are a number of bodies. Look at the Labour Party and its situation. I think Labour members found it very confusing as to whom to go to and whether to use genuine or made-up names. Here we are narrowing those electoral bodies down into one body so it will not be so confusing. I know others might have rather more unparliamentary ways of describing what the Labour Party did but I think it was just general unabashed confusion by the Labour Party. It did not know what to do. [ 
Interruption 
] Exactly. Labour members were not really sure whether they should use real names or fake ones. We are doing away with some of the confusion. Of course the Labour Party will still find other things to be confused about. 
As I said by going from a number of agencies to one we are doing a good thing. We are removing waste duplication complexity unnecessary cost and confusion. We are providing consistency and efficiency so that Darren Hughes Rick Barker and other Labour members will know where to go to get their answers on these significant issues. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Darren might have been Rick and Rick might have been Darren. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Exactly. This bill reduces several bodies to a single agency. That is a recommendation that has been made a number of times by the royal commission and the Election Framework Taskforce. There are a lot of flaws in the current system that we are doing something about. In its first reading I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7451] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7450] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Goodhew Jo: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7450] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to stand and support the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. This bill brings the House to the stage where we begin debating how the National-led Government will preserve and protect our 24/7 no-fault accident insurance programme. Quite frankly after the debate over previous weeks it is time that we refine exactly what is going to happen. We need to get it out there get it debated and—I must say after years of neglect—get the accident compensation scheme back on track. It gives me great pleasure to support the first reading of this bill.
Peachey Allan: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peachey Allan: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7443] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the first reading debate of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. There is no better place to start in making a contribution to this debate than to go back to the words of the chair of the New Zealand Medical Association Peter Foley: “Along with the rest of New Zealand we are stunned at the situation ACC finds itself in.” That was Dr Foley chair of the New Zealand Medical Association. I listened with care to the contributions of the two Labour members who spoke Mr Parker and Ms Pillay. Both of them seriously missed the point. There is only one thing that New Zealanders want to hear from Labour on the subject of accident compensation and that is three simple words: “We are sorry.” 
Of course Labour has a major problem with the scheme. It has a major problem with the scheme I say for the benefit of Ms Pillay. It was not Labour’s idea. It was an example of far-reaching social legislation introduced by a National Government nearly 40 years ago. The National Government now finds itself trying to rescue the scheme from its mismanagement under 9 years of the previous Labour Government. I ask Mr Goff to say sorry. It is time for Mr Goff to say sorry to New Zealanders in respect of the scheme. They were so badly let down by the Labour Government that he was a part of. 
Members should look at the figures that Labour is in denial over. On 9 October the 2008-09 annual report of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) was released reporting a loss of $4.8 billion. I invite the next Labour speaker to get to his or her feet and deny the accuracy of that figure. We know that it is true. That comes on top of a $2.4 billion loss for the year before. It tells the current Government that this scheme as it currently stands is unsustainable. The primary purpose of this bill is to save the scheme. It is too late for the crocodile tears on the other side of the House. It is too late to pretend that things are not as bad as that because they are as bad as that. Mr Goff should say sorry. That is what the people of New Zealand want to hear from him. 
The primary purpose of this bill is to reduce the scheme’s ongoing costs to make it more affordable for current and future generations of New Zealanders. The changes contained in this bill will make the scheme more affordable more sustainable and fair. It will improve financial reporting and accountability and will provide for closer working relationships between Government agencies and ACC. 
To sum up this bill will save the accident compensation scheme. This bill will rescue it from the mismanagement of the previous Labour Government. Mr Goff should say sorry. It is time to say sorry.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Accident Compensation—Opening Scheme to Competition 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Accident Compensation—Opening Scheme to Competition 
[Volume:658;Page:7428] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s decision to work on opening up the accident compensation scheme’s work account to competition. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The Government has introduced legislation and agreed that a stocktake group will look at the accident compensation scheme’s structure and will consider the possibility of opening up the work account to competition. This is an important matter but there must be an element of urgency for it to take precedence over other business. The time to consider the work of the stocktake group will be when it reports. The setting up of a review rarely justifies an urgent debate. 
Furthermore in considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House it is relevant to consider whether another parliamentary means of debating it is available. The Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 
introduced last Thursday aims to improve flexibility in the accident compensation scheme and includes changes to the work account. Its first reading will be debated today. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The matter can be considered over a longer time frame. Therefore the application is declined.
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7426] 
11.  
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent announcements has the Government made about the national standards policy? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 On Friday morning the Prime Minister and I launched the final version of the national standards policy at Glen Taylor School in Glendowie. The standards to be introduced in English medium primary and intermediate schools next year support the New Zealand curriculum by setting clear consistent expectations of student achievements from years 1 to 8 in reading writing and mathematics. 
Allan Peachey 
: What was the basis on which the national standards were set? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The standards were deliberately developed so that students achieving the standard are on track to obtain at least National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2. NCEA level 2 is the minimum requirement for entry into industry training options such as Modern Apprenticeships. I acknowledge that it is a high standard when just under 30 percent of our students currently leave school without NCEA level 2 but it is also a minimum level of achievement that our young New Zealanders need so that when they leave the education system they have a qualification that gives them the options that they deserve.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7424] 
9.  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What steps has the Government recently taken to enhance New Zealand’s trade opportunities in Asia? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Trade) 
: 
 The National-led Government last night signed a free-trade agreement with Malaysia. Malaysia is New Zealand’s eighth-largest export market accounting for almost $1 billion worth of exports in 2008. This free-trade agreement further deepens our ties and strengthens our relationship with a key partner underlining New Zealand’s commitment to this rapidly integrating region. The free-trade agreement supplements the existing 12-country ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement signed earlier this year and is another contribution towards the goal of a possible free-trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What specific benefits will the Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement provide for New Zealand? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: This agreement provides exporters service providers and investors with new opportunities and greater certainty while doing business in Malaysia. It will eliminate tariffs on 99.5 percent of New Zealand’s exports. Key export industries will benefit from measures including duty-free access for kiwifruit by 2012; binding our existing duty-free access for meat wool dairy fish and forestry products; and early elimination of tariffs on manufactured products like certain steel paint and plastic products. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can he confirm that the act of signing a free-trade agreement with Malaysia by the Prime Minister is the final part of a 3-year - plus process in whose success the Hon Phil Goff as former Minister of Trade had a large part to play? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I can confirm that there has been a bipartisan approach to this trade agreement and that the former Minister of Trade played his part. He was an energetic Minister of Trade; it is a shame he did not show that energy as leader of the Labour Party. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was a very straight question. The answer from the Acting Minister was a very good answer until he had to be nasty at the end. You have ruled against him doing this on nearly every question he answers. I think it is time that it stopped. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am listening to a point of order; let us have some silence while I am doing so. I think the member’s point is fairly made: it was a fair question. It obviously had political overtones but it was a fair question. To add a nasty phrase at the end of the answer was totally unnecessary. I think members should cease that and I ask the Minister not to do that again.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7420] 
7.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What reports has he received on the implementation of the Government’s policy in relation to Herceptin? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Within weeks of last year’s general election the Government as part of keeping its election promise announced it would be fully subsidising a 12-month course of Herceptin for women suffering from HER2 positive breast cancer. I am pleased to be able to report to members that according to the latest available information 191 women with HER2 positive breast cancer were receiving the Government’s fully funded 12-month course of Herceptin at the end of September. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What other progress is being made with subsidised medicines in addition to Herceptin? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The new Government has provided an extra $40 million for subsidised medicines this year including the 12-month Herceptin course. In addition to women receiving the fully subsidised 12-month course of Herceptin people suffering from cystic fibrosis hepatitis B leukaemia and autoimmune disorders will receive more treatment as a result of the extra medicines funding. At this time of economic restraint the Government is working to achieve better access to medicines for New Zealanders.
Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7419] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table four documents if I may. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What are they? 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: The first document is table M from the United Nations Development Programme’s  
Human Development Report  
of 2009 which gives New Zealand an inequality ranking similar to those of India and Russia. 
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. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: The second document is page 148 of the book  
The Spirit Level 
 by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett showing that more people are imprisoned in more unequal countries. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What was the document published in? 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: It is from a book called  
The Spirit Level 
 by researchers Wilkinson and Pickett. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: Perhaps members might relent on page 67—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member for interrupting but I say to the front benches on both sides of the Chamber that we are hearing a point of order and it will be heard in silence. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: I am seeking leave of the House to relent with regard to page 67 of the research which shows that more people suffer— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this the same document that the member— 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: Yes. It is the same book but a different page. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a separate page from the same book. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: The fourth document is a list of the top 11 “Countries with the Biggest Gaps Between Rich and Poor” which appeared on www.businessweek.com on 16 October. 
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.
Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7417] 
5.  
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Has he received advice on the UN Development Programme’s  
Human Development Report 
2009 
; and is he concerned that it positions New Zealand as having the sixth-biggest gap between rich and poor among countries with very high human development with a similar inequality score to India and Russia? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: No. The Minister is advised that NZAID Treasury and the Ministry of Social Development have not yet seen the report and the Government cannot comment about the content of a report it has not received. However I can advise the member that an electronic version of the executive summary which was sent in advance of the report’s release has been received. I understand that this summary says nothing about the inequality scores the member referred to in his question. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Given that this report has been completely available for the past week has Cabinet discussed the findings of British researchers Wilkinson and Pickett that “Almost every modern social and environmental problem—ill-health lack of community life violence drugs obesity mental illness long working hours big prison populations—is more likely to occur in a less equal society.”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Is he concerned that the same research shows that violence is higher and more people are imprisoned in more unequal countries; if so what is his Government doing to improve New Zealand’s inequality ranking from that reported by the United Nations Development Programme? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Government would need to study the report in detail before it could comment on the methodology used or the reliability of the data. I understand that methodology and data are often contentious aspects of such reports. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Given that the methodology of the United Nations Development Programme’s  
Human Development Report 
 is now 17 years old and that this particular ranking is taken from the Gini coefficient ratio which is well known to researchers and policy makers is he concerned that more people suffer from mental illness in more unequal countries; if so what is his Government doing to improve New Zealand’s inequality ranking from that recorded by the United Nations Development Programme? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister cannot be concerned or unconcerned until the report has been read and the methodology data has been studied. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Working on the assumption that the report will no doubt be read by the Government in due course at its leisure is his Government’s policy of tax cuts for the rich and cutting weekly accident compensation entitlements for casual and seasonal workers likely to increase or decrease inequality in New Zealand? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I can assure the member that when the report is received it will be read.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:658;Page:7468] 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday 28 October and for questions to be lodged in the normal manner pursuant to Standing Order 372. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. Before I ask the Clerk of the House to read out the next Government order of the day I require the assistance of a Temporary Speaker. I have asked the Hon Darren Hughes to fill that role. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was wondering whether in the brief interregnum that you are in the Chair Mr Temporary Speaker there was any particular ruling you would require us to require of you in order for you to be recorded in  
Hansard 
 as having made a ruling. Regardless of what that ruling might be I think we would be prepared to support you in that. I suppose— 
The TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Hon DARREN HUGHES) 
: I ask the honourable Minister to resume his seat. That is not a point of order. If he continues to trifle with the Chair there will be serious consequences for him.
Urgent Debates Declined — Accident Compensation—Opening Scheme to Competition 
Urgent Debates Declined — Accident Compensation—Opening Scheme to Competition 
[Volume:658;Page:7428] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Accident Compensation—Opening Scheme to Competition 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s decision to work on opening up the accident compensation scheme’s work account to competition. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The Government has introduced legislation and agreed that a stocktake group will look at the accident compensation scheme’s structure and will consider the possibility of opening up the work account to competition. This is an important matter but there must be an element of urgency for it to take precedence over other business. The time to consider the work of the stocktake group will be when it reports. The setting up of a review rarely justifies an urgent debate. 
Furthermore in considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House it is relevant to consider whether another parliamentary means of debating it is available. The Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 
introduced last Thursday aims to improve flexibility in the accident compensation scheme and includes changes to the work account. Its first reading will be debated today. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The matter can be considered over a longer time frame. Therefore the application is declined.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3477] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 9 July 2010.