edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10567] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have taken some advice on the amendment that Heather Roy has put forward. I have also listened to my colleague on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think Heather Roy’s amendment is well intentioned. I have no question at all that her concern is genuine as I think it is for every party in the House that in advancing this bill we should be advancing the interests of the victims of crime first and foremost. I think we could have had considerable debate and had we had the luxury of time we could also have gone away and everyone could have taken advice consulted widely around the community and reached an informed view as to whether this particular amendment adds in any meaningful way to the value of this legislation for victims in terms of their participation in the parole process and in particular the Parole Board hearing process. 
The problem we have is a practical one. The Committee is reaching the very very end of the debate on Part 2 and it has to make a decision on whether the amendment the member has put forward is to be supported. If it is not supported then it will be lost. If it is supported and comes in it may prove to make little effective change. But I have reached the conclusion and I have discussed this with officials that it does little harm if any. I have concluded as the Minister responsible for the bill that I will support Heather Roy’s amendment. I think it basically reflects reasonably the views genuinely held by members around the Chamber that we can make progress on the bill in a sensible way and take it on good faith that the intent is positive. The advice I can give members is that the officials’ advice is that whether or not it does great good certainly it will do little harm. I thought it would be useful to members to give an indication that I am prepared to support this amendment on behalf of the Government.
Pillay Lynne: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10566] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I rise to take a call firstly to support the Minister in what I believe was a very sound explanation of the consideration being given to victims and of Supplementary Order Paper 127 in his name relating to the sunset clause. I also want to speak in opposition to the amendments in the name of Heather Roy relating to the reported right of victims to make oral submissions to the Parole Board. 
Certainly there was considerable discussion with the advisers from the Law Commission in terms of the admission of the provisions that maintain the status quo. It was argued that for victims to give an oral submission would serve to re-victimise the victims if I can use that term. Parole decisions are based not on the crime but on information relating to the risk posed if the offender was again put within the community. Of course victims can make written submissions but there is the expectation of their going to the Parole Board and relitigating and reliving the pain and the trauma that they have experienced. In some instances the belief that recounting the crime would have quite an influence on the Parole Board’s decision really raises false expectations. It certainly was the view of the Justice and Electoral Committee that that would be a disservice to victims. It would not give them a right but really it would raise expectations about what they believed their right to be. 
So based on the information and the advice that the committee was given the decision was not to hear oral submissions at the Parole Board but that written submissions could certainly be forwarded to it. That would mean that the process was fairer and did not raise victims’ expectations. The Parole Board would consider parole on the basis of the risk posed by the offender should he or she be put back into the community. 
I would also add that the committee is currently carrying out an inquiry into victims’ rights. Very much of what we have heard and of what is in our minds—and I speak on behalf of all the committee members at this point in time—is a concern about victims during the process and about how they are supported. There should be transparency and integrity in the process whether during the prosecution of the offender or at the parole end. We want to provide clarity and certainty for victims. Raising their expectations about the impact of an oral submission on the effect the crime has had on their life does them no service at all; it does them more of a disservice. That is why I stand and say I do not support the amendments proposed by Heather Roy. Thank you.
Worth Richard: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10562] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I was just a little concerned that in the course of Mr Mark’s speech he referred to Dr Mapp when I think he was referring to me. He certainly did so on one occasion. I think he did it inadvertently. Although I am flattered to be known as Dr Mapp it could be appropriate that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order Dr Worth.
Choudhary Ashraf: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Choudhary Ashraf: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10562] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I have not heard from the ACT party yet.
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10559] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will take one final call as we come to the close of this part. After considerable debate the member Wayne Mapp wandered back to Part 1 so I think he has clearly concluded his Part 2 contribution. But I think if members translate what he said it seems that he pretty much supports overwhelmingly the measures the Government is advancing in Part 2. The member—clearly from the comments he has made and the comments his colleagues have made—overwhelmingly supports the general provisions of this bill. 
I can assure the member of numerous examples of measures both in speeches and more important perhaps in legislative measures that this Government has advanced so that serious repeat violent offenders will be dealt with harshly—and they should be. The safety of the community must be first and foremost. 
Secondly the member made reference to the influence of other parties. Well I have to say to the member that the best way to have influence is to engage and to cooperate. I want to acknowledge that this bill is the better for the engagement and cooperation of New Zealand First and of Mr Mark in particular who worked very closely on the development of the front-end home detention. I think that is a progressive measure that will significantly enhance sentencing options for the bench and provide an option that I think the bench and the community will welcome along with the resources to make sure that it can indeed work. 
I acknowledge the various contributions members have made and I look forward to wide support from the Committee for Part 2.
Woolerton R Doug: Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment  Bill—Leave to Introduce  
Woolerton R Doug: Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment  Bill—Leave to Introduce  
[Volume:640;Page:10558] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave for the Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down for first reading as a members’ order of the day despite Standing Orders 276(1) and 277(1). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10557] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I seek leave to table another document in relation to question No. 8. It is the Vote Lands estimates review of the select committee— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10555] 
11.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: Has she received any reports on the future of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: Yes. The Minister has received a report that states that the ministry is “a sexist relic” that the National Party “will extinguish” and another report stating that it would be preferable for the ministry’s funding to be increased and for it to be given “more teeth”. The first report is from National’s Judith Collins and second is from National’s Jackie Blue. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has she received any reports from the ministry on policies that benefit women? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes actually I have. The ministry has provided valuable input into policies that benefit women and families such as paid parental leave Working for Families pay and employment equity and 20 hours’ free early childhood education. Those are all policies that National has opposed. National can say for political reasons that it supports the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and the work that it does but it is obvious that it does not support women’s issues. Its true attitude is shown in John Key’s statement last month: “We don’t have enough women in our caucus so we’ve had to start cross-dressing.” or Bob Clarkson informing us: “All guys should get married—we should all suffer the same amount.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members to wish to remain in the Chamber they will be quiet. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not hear the last part of the answer because of all the noise. Could the Minister repeat it please. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I will ask the Minister to summarise her answer. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am happy to— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. Would both members please be seated. The Minister was asked for reports. As members know those reports can in fact be given in the House. However Ministers cannot comment on the internal matters of a political party. But the reports if they are in the arena are able to be included in the answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. They may be able to be received but they have to be reports that relate surely in this case to matters pertaining to the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. I think that the Minister took considerable licence in straying away from that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think we will hear whether the Minister did stray this time. Hon Ruth Dyson please summarise the answer. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The final report I quoted was from Bob Clarkson National member of Parliament who informed us: “All guys should get married—we should all suffer the same amount.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do think that was not actually directly related to the Ministry of Women’s Affairs so I accept the point of order.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10554] 
9.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What recent announcements has she made to assist local government that provide greater flexibility for land transport funding? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced at the Local Government New Zealand Conference that regionally distributed funding also known as R funding will now be available for renewal projects such as rebuilding and replacing roads and other land transport infrastructure. R funding was first made available in 2005 to assist local government with priority infrastructure projects. It is distributed on a regional basis. Unfortunately some local authorities were unable to take full advantage of R funding because originally it could be applied only for capital projects. Now areas like Southland for example will be able to access funding for renewals. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House what the reaction was to this announcement at the Local Government New Zealand Conference? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There was a very enthusiastic reaction particularly from rural and provincial New Zealanders whose needs they know were neglected in the 1990s by the previous National Government. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister therefore tell the House how much money will be made available for renewal? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Of the $2 billion available for land transport infrastructure projects approximately $510 million has been set aside for local road projects depending on what regions regard as their land transport priorities. Some of this funding will be available for renewals. It will be very much up to the regions themselves.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10551] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave to ask the Minister an extra supplementary question given his revelations this afternoon. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Duynhoven Harry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duynhoven Harry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10551] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 In answer to a supplementary question to question No. 4 I told the House that around $10 million was spent on the acquisition of seismic data by the Government in the Great South Basin to achieve an exploration expenditure of $1200 million. In fact I overstated it. The correct figure is $5.3 million.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:640;Page:10539] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I cannot give the member an absolute date around that but he should be prepared for it within the near future.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:640;Page:10539] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 In response to the indication of next week’s business from the Leader of the House can he tell us when we may expect to see the electoral spending reform bill—much talked about in the media but certainly not talked about with us—coming to the floor of the House.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:640;Page:10539] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House progress is to be made on the next stages of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill the Wills Bill and the Major Events Management Bill. Priority will also be given to the first readings of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment  Bill—Leave to Introduce  
Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment  Bill—Leave to Introduce  
[Volume:640;Page:10558] 
Points of Order 
Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment  Bill—Leave to Introduce  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave for the Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down for first reading as a members’ order of the day despite Standing Orders 276(1) and 277(1). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:640;Page:10539] 
Thursday 19 July 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House progress is to be made on the next stages of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill the Wills Bill and the Major Events Management Bill. Priority will also be given to the first readings of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 In response to the indication of next week’s business from the Leader of the House can he tell us when we may expect to see the electoral spending reform bill—much talked about in the media but certainly not talked about with us—coming to the floor of the House. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I cannot give the member an absolute date around that but he should be prepared for it within the near future.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6900] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Maori Purposes Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time.
Horomia Parekura: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — First Reading 
Horomia Parekura: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6884] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Criminal Justice Reform Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
referred to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Motion agreed to.
Henare Tau: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — First Reading 
Henare Tau: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6884] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How can the bill be read a first time when we have just finished reading it a first time? That was the motion. The motion on the floor was to read it for the first time and then there needs to be a motion to send it to the select committee. I am not sure where the Minister has been but we have just finished the first reading and now he should get up and move that it be sent to the appropriate select committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite correct. Is the Minister moving a motion?
Horomia Parekura: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — First Reading 
Horomia Parekura: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6884] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move that the Criminal Justice Reform Bill now be read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Henare Tau: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — First Reading 
Henare Tau: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6884] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have a bit of an impasse here. We have a Minister in the House who does not seem to be aware of what is supposed to happen. With that surely the vote goes back to the status quo. Nobody is here to move that that bill go to a particular select committee. I think that is an absolute shock. It is shameful that nobody is here to do his or her job properly considering a Minister gets $200000 or $300000 a year as a ministerial salary.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6884] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Justice Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time.
Mark Ron: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6882] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to have the House lift and for me to resume my speech when the House resumes at 7.30. I see that there is less than half a minute on the clock and it would seem rather pointless to start a speech at this point in time. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
[Volume:636;Page:6849] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: First of all the seating arrangements in the House are of course a matter for the party concerned and that matter I think has been addressed. I will take advice on the other. I will address the question; I will take advice on it.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
[Volume:636;Page:6848] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I take it that the Leader of the House is offering us the seat of the honourable Phillip Field who of course is no longer in Parliament; instead he is out there collecting a massive salary at the grace and favour of Helen Clark. I raise a further point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That probably was not a point of order but we will get to the point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well it does concern the status of the honourable Phillip Field. We are told that this member is on leave at the moment supposedly suspended from his parliamentary duties. Well it is news to us—and it has been for some time—that the Prime Minister has the capacity to suspend anybody from the Parliament when he or she has been duly elected. Madam Speaker we would like to know what your view is on this particular situation given that Mr Field has not been in the House for a very considerable period of time now. We are told that the police inquiry will go on for some months into next year and that Mr Field will apparently not be making any appearance in the House for that time. Regardless of whatever the Prime Minister says Mr Field has a duty to his constituents to be here and that is a duty I believe you Madam Speaker have a role in upholding.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
[Volume:636;Page:6848] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have been handed a list of the new seating arrangements in the House. There appears to be no seat for Mr Lindsay Tisch. I would like to be assured given Mr Tisch’s sterling service as a whip in this House that he will be provided with a seat on his next appearance in Parliament.
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:636;Page:6846] 
11.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Can his ministry include Gardasil in the national immunisation programme earlier than 2008 given the Cancer Control Council’s opinion that the vaccine offers a unique window of opportunity to address inequalities around cancer; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I can confirm that the next time changes will be made to the National Immunisation Schedule will be in 2008 and that Gardasil is under consideration for inclusion at that time. However I must also say to the member that there are other vaccines under consideration including one for pneumococcal disease which includes meningitis. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Are the Ministry of Health’s deliberations on the addition of Gardasil to the National Immunisation Schedule related solely to financial considerations? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: They are certainly not related solely to financial considerations although both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are taken into account. If we have to buy it we have to be able to pay for it. 
Sue Moroney 
: What is the process for implementing a major vaccination campaign? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Implementing a change to the National Immunisation Schedule takes 12 to 15 months after a decision is made to include a new vaccine. Information for patients training of health professionals to administer the vaccine and establishment of the safety regime around the vaccine are all required beforehand. These are matters that are well understood by the immunisation community. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware of the reported association between the incidence of cervical cancer and socio-economic deprivation; if so is it morally acceptable that Gardasil is currently available from general practitioners at around $450 which puts it well beyond the reach of many of the people who would benefit from it most? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think the member makes a good point but I say back to her that whether or not we have Gardasil this country will continue to need ongoing cervical screening. I say further that that screening needs to reach more assertively towards parts of our population that tend to access it less. That is what we will need to do with screening no matter what we do with Gardasil.
Hartley Ann: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hartley Ann: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:636;Page:6844] 
9.  
ANN HARTLEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What support has he seen for the Government’s anti-smoking initiatives? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Two weeks ago I hosted a breakfast at Parliament that featured two international speakers talking on the subject of misleading terms on tobacco products. It was good to see support from members across the House including National’s associate health spokesperson Jonathan Coleman. 
Ann Hartley 
: What reports has he seen on the effects of exposure to second-hand smoke? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I have seen many reports on the harmful effects of exposure to second-hand smoke and they range from lung cancer to emphysema heart attacks and possible concussion. It has also been disturbing to read in a recent publication that British American Tobacco a company responsible for many of the diseases and conditions mentioned has close links to the National Party. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is the Minister aware of the statement from the Cancer Society spokesperson Belinda Hughes that it is hypocritical of the Government to support international agreements on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control while lining its pockets with tobacco industry profits; if so when will he take action to challenge Crown financial institutions to withdraw any investment in tobacco companies? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware of the contentious issue of Governments taking tax or duty from tobacco. It is one of the dilemmas that we continue to work through. However our focus is on reducing the harm from tobacco use for all groups across this country. 
Metiria 
Turei 
: What advice has the Minister received regarding links between the National Party and British American Tobacco and has he had any advice on the impact that such links might have on the capacity of this Parliament to regulate tobacco in the best interests of our own people? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am advised that according to a recent publication on 30 June Don Brash and David Carter met with seven of the top managers of British American Tobacco. This was at a time when the company was working on plans to introduce new candy-flavoured and alcohol-flavoured cigarettes—a move criticised by the Public Health Association as trying to get children hooked on smoking. I would also like to acknowledge the fact that due to support from parties such as the Greens this Parliament has been able to make some significant progress on regulating tobacco control in this country. Of course those steps have all been continually opposed by the National Party.
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:636;Page:6844] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document relating to question No. 4 where the Hon Nick Smith told us that the Department of Conservation had delayed the Kaituna project for 18 months. I have a document that shows that 6 months of that delay was caused by the applicant. There was a 2-month delay while the applicant provided a fuller application to the department and a further 4-month delay while the applicant provided the department with comments. Once again the member was not quite truthful. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:636;Page:6842] 
7.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Senior Citizens 
: Has the Government taken any steps recently towards meeting the goals of the New Zealand Positive Ageing Strategy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 Following on from the recent very successful launch of the Supergold card by my colleague and associate the Rt Hon Winston Peters the Prime Minister announced yesterday the removal of the mandatory on-road driving test for people aged 80 years and over. This will remove the stress of older people taking the test without unduly compromising road safety. 
Darren Hughes 
: Has she seen any reports of proposals that would be detrimental to the welfare and positive ageing of older New Zealanders? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Actually I have. I have seen a report suggesting lifting the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation to 68 years of age while at the same time seeking to “inoculate” the issue by publicly promising not to change the age of eligibility and to be prepared to find a “nuanced way of talking about super issues.” I challenge the new leader of the National Party to confirm that the National Party’s stated policy on superannuation is its real policy and not just another example of style over substance.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:636;Page:6836] 
2.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports if any has he received on the proposals for research and development tax credits included in the business tax review? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received positive feedback on the proposals from a wide range of sources especially those involved in research and development. For example nearly two-thirds of submitters on the business tax review supported the research and development credits. 
Shane Jones 
: What other reports has he received on the merits of research and development tax credits? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I received two quite contradictory reports. One report argued strongly for better write-off research and development spending in the purchase of plant and equipment. The second report opposed the use of tax incentives altogether in this area. The first report was from the new National leader and the second was from the new finance spokesperson Bill English—contradiction No. 1 for the day. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that aside from the business tax review being New Zealand First’s policy it together with moves to incentivise productivity research and development through tax credits forms part of the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and Labour? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm that the business tax review is part of that confidence and supply agreement and the confidence and supply agreement with United Future and I have great confidence that Mr Dunne will supply some answers. 
Shane Jones 
: Has the Minister received any reports of different views on the correlation between tax cuts and economic growth? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have received two reports. The first report notes that tax cuts are “central to our growth strategy”. The second report expressed doubts about the link between tax cuts and economic growth stating: “I don’t think tax cuts are a magic bullet. There is no magic link between one and the other.” The first report came from the leader of the National Party and the second came from the deputy leader of the National Party—contradiction No. 2 for today. Unfortunately Mr English has not put down a question to me so I cannot find contradiction No. 3 just yet.
Clark Helen: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—Unconstitutional Actions 
Clark Helen: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—Unconstitutional Actions 
[Volume:636;Page:6832] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I thank the members who have spoken for the stand they have also taken in support of democracy in Fiji. I believe no one could have done more than the New Zealand Government has endeavoured to do in the past couple of weeks to avert this course of events. I want to give particular credit to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters who has been assiduous in attending to that relationship and we continue to call for dialogue. We have always believed that was the best way through. We know that in the year 2000 when the coup was attempted by George Speight Commodore Bainimarama got a lot of credit for standing up to that. To see him today carve out a position for himself as the Speight equivalent in 2006 is tragic. He should reflect on that and pull back from where he is today.
Hide Rodney: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—Unconstitutional Actions 
Hide Rodney: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—Unconstitutional Actions 
[Volume:636;Page:6832] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The people of Fiji are our friends our neighbours and our family and they are in our thoughts and prayers today. I too rise on behalf of the ACT party to support the Prime Minister’s statement and indeed Mr Peter Dunne and the work Helen Clark our Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters have done in trying to avert this tragedy. We should stand firm behind the Prime Minister of Fiji as the duly elected leader of that country. Although we greatly admire the ability of the Fijian soldiers it is important that this House remind them that they are the servants of the people of Fiji and that it is not their job to overturn the Prime Minister of Fiji it is not their job to subjugate the people of Fiji and that they should return to their proud tradition of being soldiers in the service of the Fijian people and not become the thugs and the bullies that their current commander is leading them down the road to becoming. The ACT party stands with the rest of this House in condemning the actions of the Fijian military in attempting to overturn and usurp the legitimate authority of the duly elected Fijian Government.
Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—Unconstitutional Actions 
Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—Unconstitutional Actions 
[Volume:636;Page:6832] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I am more than happy to endorse the actions that the Prime Minister has already taken and has announced this afternoon in respect of the bizarre and inexplicable coup in Fiji. I want too to acknowledge the work the Minister of Foreign Affairs has done over the last week. I thought it was a very brave and far-sighted attempt to broker a deal. It was unfortunate that the good faith that the Minister and the Government showed was not honoured by at least one of the participants. 
 I also want to express admiration for Prime Minister Qarase and the courage he is showing at the moment and to send a message from this Parliament that this country stands by his steadfast support of democracy. As the Leader of the Opposition said this is a chance for New Zealand to show leadership in the Pacific area and the best way we can do that in this very fraught situation is to demonstrate our solidarity and support for those people who uphold democracy in Fiji to encourage them to continue their valiant stand for freedom and to do what we can behind the scenes to play an influential and constructive role. I am more than happy to endorse the stand the Government has taken to date.
Locke Keith: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—Unconstitutional Actions 
Locke Keith: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—Unconstitutional Actions 
[Volume:636;Page:6832] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party fully supports the Prime Minister’s statement and that of the leader of the National Party that we should unite as a House to convey to the Fiji military in particular to draw back at this critical moment and not lead Fiji into such a catastrophe that will result from a coup—the fourth coup in a couple of decades. I also endorse the Prime Minister’s role so far in trying to mediate between the parties and I think that should continue. If a coup takes place I think we would have to combine the sanctions and criticism of the military regime with close support and dialogue with the democratic forces in Fiji be they the elected Government or the non-governmental organisations. One final note in terms of something that perhaps we can learn from this experience is that we should not necessarily be encouraging countries such as Fiji—and the same applies to Tonga which I visited last week—to have significant armed forces when they face no external enemy and when those defence forces are actually used against their own people. Thank you.
Key John: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—Unconstitutional Actions 
Key John: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—Unconstitutional Actions 
[Volume:636;Page:6831] 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 The National Party joins with the Government in expressing its deep concern at what has taken place in Fiji over the past few days. It is now clear that we have a coup either taking place or about to take place in Fiji. This illegal act by the Fijian military and its commander is likely to have grave consequences for many innocent and law-abiding Fijians. We support the New Zealand Government in its efforts to convey to the commodore that such illegal action does not come without a price and that there will be serious consequences. National calls on the Government to stand by the statements it has previously made about the ramifications for Fiji. 
It is sad for New Zealand to be facing an outbreak of instability yet again amongst our Pacific Island neighbours. We trust that the Government will now move without delay to put in place moves to achieve the sanctions that are now due. This serves to reinforce the importance of the role New Zealand needs to play in the Pacific Island region as we try to achieve greater stability amongst our Pacific neighbours. This is a time when unfortunately we need to take strong measures and send the clearest possible message that it is unacceptable to tamper with democratically elected Governments.
Clark Helen: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—Unconstitutional Actions 
Clark Helen: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—Unconstitutional Actions 
[Volume:636;Page:6831] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I wish to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 348 in relation to the situation in Fiji. 
I am sure that all New Zealanders today will share the shock of the Government and this Parliament at the unconstitutional actions by the military and the President of Fiji. I have been advised this morning that the President of Fiji has now acted outside his constitutional powers and supported the removal of the democratically elected Prime Minister by the military. I have spoken again to the Fiji Prime Minister Mr Qarase within the last hour and a quarter. He is showing great courage in the face of huge threats and intimidation by the Fiji military led by Commodore Bainimarama. The Prime Minister has told me again that he has no intention of resigning. He is deeply concerned that the President has acted outside his constitutional powers in supporting the military. 
The message of the New Zealand Government to the President and to the commodore is very clear. They should pull back even at this late stage from their unconstitutional actions. If they do not they will cause irreparable damage to the Fiji economy and people. Given the events that have already taken place the New Zealand Government is now imposing travel bans on senior republic of Fiji military officials and their families and it is discussing with the Commonwealth Secretary-General the inscribing of Fiji on the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group list with the likelihood that if this coup is not stopped Fiji will again be suspended from membership of the Commonwealth. As of now New Zealand is suspending bilateral defence ties with the exception of maritime patrolling disaster relief and search and rescue activities. 
A range of further measures is available to the New Zealand Government and will be based on our reactions to coup activity in 2000 and previously. These measures will be implemented progressively unless the commodore and the President withdraw from their unconstitutional actions. 
The New Zealand Government fears for the future of Fiji when a democratically elected Government acting within the constitution is put under this kind of pressure by a military acting outside the law. We commend Prime Minister Qarase and his Government for standing up to this bullying undemocratic and unconstitutional action. We call on all parties in this Parliament to join us in sending this message to Fiji.
Points of Order — Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
Points of Order — Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
[Volume:636;Page:6848] 
Points of Order 
Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have been handed a list of the new seating arrangements in the House. There appears to be no seat for Mr Lindsay Tisch. I would like to be assured given Mr Tisch’s sterling service as a whip in this House that he will be provided with a seat on his next appearance in Parliament. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I take it that the Leader of the House is offering us the seat of the honourable Phillip Field who of course is no longer in Parliament; instead he is out there collecting a massive salary at the grace and favour of Helen Clark. I raise a further point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That probably was not a point of order but we will get to the point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well it does concern the status of the honourable Phillip Field. We are told that this member is on leave at the moment supposedly suspended from his parliamentary duties. Well it is news to us—and it has been for some time—that the Prime Minister has the capacity to suspend anybody from the Parliament when he or she has been duly elected. Madam Speaker we would like to know what your view is on this particular situation given that Mr Field has not been in the House for a very considerable period of time now. We are told that the police inquiry will go on for some months into next year and that Mr Field will apparently not be making any appearance in the House for that time. Regardless of whatever the Prime Minister says Mr Field has a duty to his constituents to be here and that is a duty I believe you Madam Speaker have a role in upholding. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: First of all the seating arrangements in the House are of course a matter for the party concerned and that matter I think has been addressed. I will take advice on the other. I will address the question; I will take advice on it.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5832] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a second time.
Brownlee Gerry: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5826] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 We accept that the Hon Harry Duynhoven should be taken at his word when he said he had not deliberately dallied in the House but was notifying the senior whip that he was the duty Minister. I am sure the senior whip was greatly appreciative because quite clearly he would not have been following proceedings at the time and probably of his own volition could not have worked that out. 
On Mr Duynhoven’s second point I assure him that all of the people on this side will try not to speak at a greater audible volume than they would from their normal seats. But if he thinks we are speaking too loudly he should take another point of order and we can have some further discussion about the matter. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee but that was not a point of order.
Duynhoven Harry: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5826] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First I want to assure you and your predecessor in the Chair that earlier this afternoon when I was asked to leave the House I certainly moved to do so and did not intend in any way to disrespect or disobey the Speaker’s direction. I was simply under Standing Order 85 doing as I was asked but I was informing the acting chief whip that I was the duty Minister so he needed to arrange for someone to replace me. 
My second point relates to the current debate. We have heard a lot of interjection from the Opposition and on occasions I suppose we might even expect it to be a little witty. We have been disappointed so far. However a large number of the interjections have been made by people who are not sitting in their normal seats. Former Speakers have ruled on many occasions that interjections should be rare and reasonable and hopefully witty and should be made by members who are sitting in their seats and not deliberately moving to be closer to the member who is speaking. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Duynhoven. I will be the judge of that.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5808] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a first time.