edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bridges Simon: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1277] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I support the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. I agree with something the Minister said and indeed with what other members in the House have said: that DNA is indeed the modern-day fingerprint. Therefore at a basic intuitive level this bill makes great sense as it expands the State’s database and it allows more crimes to be solved—it is hard to disagree with that—it allows more criminals to be brought to justice—it is hard to disagree with that—and also of course it allows the innocent to be eliminated from the inquiry. And indeed it is hard to disagree with that. 
The bill also allows the State to move with the times as the science gets better and better. The science of DNA testing does indeed get better and better month by month. It was not so long ago that it required a DNA sample about the size of a 50c piece—whether blood semen hair; you name it—for there to be any ability to use it and get usable DNA from it. Now there is trace DNA invisible to the human eye which is capable of being good evidence in court. The power of the technology is greatly increasing month by month and this bill moves with the times and allows us to use the modern-day fingerprint of DNA to good effect in the criminal justice system. The bill seems to do away as well with the needless charade of suspect compulsion order hearings in the High Court and the need for lengthy expensive hearings that waste a High Court judge’s time and for that reason alone it is to be commended. 
Can I also just say that in terms of the Attorney-General’s report it is good indeed to see that an Attorney-General is able to issue a report to this House like this report which is a lawyerly detached legal opinion rather than the kind of report—which was not a report at all—that we saw from the previous Attorney-General in relation to the Electoral Finance Bill where clearly there were breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Here we have a fine lawyer as Attorney-General who is able to deal in shades of grey rather than just in black and white. He has issued a tentative opinion that this bill appears to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bills of Rights Act. Certainly as someone on the Justice and Electoral Committee I say that I am sure we will take this report seriously. We will look at the issues in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act impact and consider this matter carefully. 
Nevertheless this bill allows the DNA testing database into the criminal justice system in a greater way. It is the modern-day fingerprint. I commend the bill to the House.
Roy Eric: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1273] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: When the House rose for the dinner break it was engaged in a series of points of order for which at that stage there was no resolution. I have given the matter consideration. The Leader of the House moved under urgency to adjourn the debate on the first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill. An adjourned debate is set down for further consideration on the next sitting day. Because the motion to adjourn the debate did not specify its resumption at a later hour on the same day the debate on the first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill should have been set down for resumption on the next sitting day. 
An urgency motion cannot anticipate business that has been set down for a future day. Had the Leader of the House indicated that the debate was to be adjourned to later today it could have been included in an urgency motion. Having moved that the debate on the first reading be adjourned the Leader of the House indicated to the Assistant Speaker that he did not wish to continue with the remaining business in the urgency motion and the House resumed consideration of Government orders of the day from the Order Paper. 
Prior to Government order of the day No. 1 being called the Leader of the House moved a further urgency motion to accord urgency to the adjourned debate on the first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill its second reading and Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2. This motion was agreed to. 
Having reflected on the matters relating to the urgency motion I rule that it is not in order for the motion to include an item set down for consideration on the next sitting day. While the House is in urgency it will require leave for the adjourned debate on the first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill to be added to the urgency motion. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave for the House notwithstanding the wording of the motion to adjourn the first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill to continue the debate on the first and second readings of the bill. I do so in order to give the Government a chance and because Mr Brownlee has probably suffered enough over the last couple of weeks. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1270] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the House accord urgency to the first reading and the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill and Government orders Nos 1 and 2. 
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.
Roy Eric: Urgency 
Roy Eric: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1270] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: We have had an explanation about urgency being broken we have had an explanation from the Minister as to why the urgency is required and I will now put the motion.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1270] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes it is true. I listened to the pleadings of Opposition members who do not want to be here for additional hours and thought we had better drop one item off. If they want me to put one item back on then certainly I will do so. The reason for the urgency is that we see the Electoral Amendment Bill as being extremely important to the Government’s programme. We want it to be passed in 100 days. The motion affords the opportunity for that. The Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill is one that is very important also and we want that to be progressed. The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill provides that those who commit crimes are levied by $50 for a victims’ fund. We think that is very important and we want that to be debated as well.
Hughes Darren: Urgency 
Hughes Darren: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1269] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I make two points. First the Leader of the House has now given us a different motion from the one he gave to the House before we got into this little debate. Second I want to be clear what the motion was about given that the Leader of the House was not sure himself. He is required to advise the House why urgency is required. But the main point is that he has shifted the business within 10 minutes of his earlier motion in terms of what we are meant to be in urgency about. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That point is correct.
Mallard Trevor: Urgency 
Mallard Trevor: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1269] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that you are getting unhappy but one thing I have done on a number of occasions as a Minister and that I have organised to be done in the past as a whip is the adjournment of a debate under urgency. It can be done in two ways. It can be adjourned and set down for further consideration presently and it stays within the urgency motion or one can do as the Leader of the House has done now which has the effect of the House being unable to consider that matter under the current urgency motion. But quite often there have been 10 or 15 other matters for which urgency has been accorded. In this case there is only one further matter for which urgency has been accorded and what happens is that when we abandon one matter we go on to the next. Urgency is not currently breached.
Roy Eric: Urgency 
Roy Eric: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1269] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not really a part of the point of order. We are not currently in urgency. It is the Government’s prerogative to move whatever motion it likes and if members have displeasure at that they can vote accordingly. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How can we know that we’re not in urgency Mr Speaker? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Because we took a motion to go out of urgency. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No we did not. 
Hon Annette King 
: We did not. We adjourned the debate. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We adjourned the debate. That doesn’t take us out of urgency. It takes us to the next business. Adjourning a debate takes you to the next business under urgency. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I ask members to wait just one moment while I take some advice. We are probably breaking new ground here but when the Government moves to adjourn the debate it is in effect breaking the urgency. Therefore the other motion is in order. We will now put the motion. The question is that the motion—
Mallard Trevor: Urgency 
Mallard Trevor: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1268] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: I think it does go back somewhat to the original point that I was trying to make which is that when the House has taken urgency it takes urgency for a particular set of business and other business cannot be included while that urgency is occurring. It appears to me that what has happened here is that when we have not completed the original urgency—merely adjourning a particular debate as the member has done and is able to do—we go on to the next business of the original urgency motion. We are not in a position under the original urgency motion to take another motion that is not within what was set down to the House and agreed to by the House. I accept that the Leader of the House has made a mistake and is trying to get out of it. As a Government whip for a number of years I know that mistake has been made in the past and is a serious one. Frankly my memory is that when one makes a mistake like that one is essentially stuffed.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1268] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: This situation is caused by a mistake on my part. I have admitted that to the House. I left two important words out of the motion and there is no intention that the House should sit beyond 10 o’clock this evening under urgency. The motion that I just mentioned was rather due to the fact that the House appears to be making greater progress than was previously anticipated. But if the member wishes me to pare things back then there is another procedure that we might go through. This is the way to achieve the outcome that was previously notified. I make the point that urgency was notified for this day and nothing has changed in that regard.
Roy Eric: Urgency 
Roy Eric: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1268] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will hear from Mr Brownlee and that may well satisfy your point of order.
Hughes Darren: Urgency 
Hughes Darren: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1268] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a new point of order. In order for the Government to get the House sitting hours extended this evening from 7.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. the Government is required to advise the Business Committee of going into urgency and the Government did that at its second attempt at the meeting on Tuesday. We have had a motion for urgency that was voted on for the House to go into urgency. The Leader of the House has now broken that and I cannot see how he can then try to create a second round of urgency when that was not advised to the Business Committee at the meeting held earlier in the week. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s the same sitting day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The Leader of the House interjected but he has adjourned the previous urgency motion that was before the House—the agreement that was before the Business Committee. My second point—to seek information from the Leader of the House—is that he has now moved an additional motion that adds an extra order of the day to those he advised in his previous motion which would clearly take the House beyond 10 o’clock this evening to a Friday morning sitting. Can he give the House some assurance or advice about what his sitting programme is because with each additional urgency motion he is adding more work for the House and it would be impossible to get it all done?
Roy Eric: Urgency 
Roy Eric: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1268] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: My understanding is and I rule that what has happened is quite in order. The Leader of the House has sought to go out of urgency whereupon the Government can indicate at any time that it does not wish to continue with the urgency. It has now moved another motion on which we will put the vote.
Mallard Trevor: Urgency 
Mallard Trevor: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1267] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 That is the very point that I was making. The fact that we have adjourned a particular debate when we have another debate already set down and agreed to by the House under urgency does not mean that we can then move to another urgency motion. The proper thing to do is to deal with the next matter that the House has already agreed that urgency be accorded to. That is the next order of business not this one here. We have to go to that matter we have to deal with it and then we have to come back to this motion.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1267] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In moving the motion earlier it was my mistake that I left out two very important words. The consequence of that is that the House may end up doing considerable extra time next week. There is a general understanding that we will be sitting until 10 o’clock tonight so I took the step of moving a motion to adjourn the previous debate. We have now adjourned it; we are in normal House time. I am now moving urgency according to the motion that I have just moved. It is different from the previous one so as to satisfy the requirements of the Standing Orders. That is essentially the situation we are in.
Mallard Trevor: Urgency 
Mallard Trevor: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1267] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a question of asking you for a ruling as to whether the motion that has just been moved was one that was agreed to within the original urgency motion. We are now currently in urgency. I cannot remember that motion being on the list and if that is not the case we have to come out of urgency— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Which we have done. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sorry; I thought we had one other item in the original motion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will just respond to the member. It is not for the Speaker to have knowledge or be part of any agreements that are organised so it is not for me to rule on that matter. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No Mr Assistant Speaker I am not— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Hang on I am on my feet. It is a matter of process. The Leader of the House has sought to go out of urgency. He is now moving another motion. It is not for me to respond as to whether there is any agreement on that within the House. The Leader of the House may wish to clarify that.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1267] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the House afford urgency to the continued first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill and items Nos 1 2 and 3 on the Order Paper.
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1267] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1259] 
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.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1258] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded to the introduction and first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill and Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2.  
The Electoral Amendment Bill deals with the controversial Electoral Finance Act which caused a great deal of grief for a lot of New Zealanders prior to the last election. It was a commitment of the National Party going into the election to in fact 
— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Turn the page. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —sorry 
— 
advance that bill. It is our intention today to make very significant progress with the bill which will be read a first and second time this evening.
Brownlee Gerry: Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
Brownlee Gerry: Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
[Volume:652;Page:1258] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That Mr Speaker accompanied by the mover and the seconder and other members of this House do present the said Address to His Excellency the Governor-General at a place and time to be appointed by His Excellency 
.
Smith Lockwood: Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
Smith Lockwood: Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
[Volume:652;Page:1258] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Address is as follows: 
ADDRESS FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
TO 
His Excellency The Honourable Anand Satyanand PCNZM QSO Governor-General of New Zealand  
YOUR EXCELLENCY— 
WE the House of Representatives thank you for the speech addressed to us when you opened this Forty-ninth Parliament. 
We assure you that the matters referred to in your speech will receive our careful consideration. 
Ko te tumanako nei kia mahi tahi tatou katoa.
Vote: Address in Reply 
Vote: Address in Reply 
[Volume:652;Page:1258] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the following words be added to the Address: “And expects over the next three years to see a closing of the wage gap with Australia; reduced serious crime including family violence; reduced waiting times for elective surgery with twenty new dedicated elective surgery theatres; fewer people on working-age benefits; lower greenhouse gas emissions; increased investment in infrastructure including rail and public transport; the extension of the fibre network to nearly all homes; all sixteen and seventeen year olds in education training or employment; no cuts to public services; expanded availability of subsidised medicines; a police to population ratio of 1:500 with all new sworn police officers committed to general duty roles; a doubling of the number of prisoners receiving drug and alcohol treatment; and the settling of half of the remaining historical Treaty of Waitangi claims.” 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Address in Reply 
Tisch Lindsay: Address in Reply 
[Volume:652;Page:1237] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am informed that the next call is a National call and it will be split. I call Chris Tremain.
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1234] 
11.  
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What reports has he seen about investment in the national electricity grid? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I have today seen a report from Transpower stating that it will accelerate a $50 million upgrade programme to maintain and strengthen structures on the national electricity grid. The programme will bring forward required maintenance that had been planned to occur over the next 10 years. It will focus on tower maintenance civil work and substation maintenance. I am advised further that an additional $50 million of investment in conductor upgrades will be announced shortly. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Where will this important infrastructure work take place? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The work will be mainly in rural areas and will take place all around New Zealand. The work will employ relatively high levels of local labour and use locally sourced materials so it will provide much-needed economic stimulus in those parts of New Zealand. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen the description of the programme by the Transpower chief executive Patrick Strange as “essential maintenance work” brought forward—that is neither major nor new? And is not the Minister’s attempt to trumpet it as “upgrading the national grid” typical of the overselling by this Government of its so-called stimulus package? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Does Transpower have any other work planned for the electricity grid? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes it does. I am advised that Transpower has over $3.8 billion worth of projects planned to reinforce the national grid. These projects either have commenced construction or are in the planning stages. The Government is currently looking at ways to fast track some of those projects by removing some of the regulatory roadblocks to that investment. There will be further announcements soon. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table two statements. One is from the chief executive of Transpower describing the programme as “essential maintenance work” and one is from the Minister describing it as “upgrading the national grid”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member seriously wants to have them tabled could we deal with the first one first. That was the statement from— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Transpower. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that statement being tabled? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And the second one was? 
Charles Chauvel 
: From the Minister describing this programme as an upgrade of the national grid. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I guess I am obliged to seek leave. Is there any objection? There seems to be no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1233] 
10.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Did she explain in person to the Minister of Maori Affairs her reason for rejecting his submission on the minimum wage review; if so what was his response? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 No. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Has the Minister seen any reports regarding the minimum wage? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes. I have seen a report from the  
Otago Daily Times 
 which unlike the member could understand that this Government’s decision on the minimum wage was “able to appeal— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does the Minister understand that she is making disparaging remarks about one of her own colleagues? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is most inappropriate. That was not a helpful point of order Dr Cullen. I apologise to the Hon Kate Wilkinson. Could she please resume her answer. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes. I have seen a report from the  
Otago Daily Times 
 which unlike Mr Mallard could understand that this Government’s decision on the minimum wage was “able to appeal to the sense of fairness and realism of much of the middle New Zealand.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can I ask the Minister why she chose not to meet with Dr Sharples or even to ring him up about this? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I answered yesterday I received a letter from the Minister of Maori Affairs. I also read a submission from Te Puni Kokiri. We took those submissions into consideration when calculating a fair balanced and realistic minimum wage.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1229] 
6.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is the fiscal cost of those initiatives in the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill which were not part of the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill introduced by the last Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The fiscal cost of the new initiatives in the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill that the member refers to over the remaining 2008-09 year and the 2009-10 year is $355 million and the fiscal cost over the next 4¼ years is $69 million. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is the Minister aware that under the Labour Government policy use-of-money interest rates would have reduced to a reciprocal 4.66 percent by now under half what he is planning to charge; and why does he continue to punish small businesses in the current economic conditions? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is another one of the fairy tales that Labour was telling during the campaign. That was an announcement made during the campaign but for which there was no funding. If we added up all the promises that the Labour Government made against the Budget allocation that it said it would stick to they would have blown the lid off it. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What is the fiscal cost of the tax initiatives announced as part of the small-business relief package? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The fiscal cost of the whole package is $484 million over the next 4¼ years. The main measures in it are a reduction of use-of-money interest which has a cost of about $70 million and removing the uplift on provisional tax payments that are due in May this year which means that about $0.25 billion will stay in the bank accounts of small and medium enterprises. Of course over the next 2 or 3 years that will be recovered by the Government. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What according to the current formula would the use-of-money interest rate be as of April this year if the Minister had not announced his plan to move the rate to 9.73 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot tell the member that off the top of my head but I can say his naive belief that because Labour said it would do something there was actually any money or any plans to do it is nonsense and that applies to about a hundred things it announced in the last 12 months. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How does the small-business relief package benefit the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am pleased the member asked that question. It will benefit the economy in two ways. First it will provide some short-term stimulus to businesses by for instance leaving $0.25 billion of provisional tax cash in their bank accounts. Second it also achieves longer-term gains as the Government is succeeding in doing with regard to many of its decisions in that it reduces compliance costs and will help to build business confidence so that as this economy comes out of recession businesses will invest and employ. That is how we will replace the jobs that are lost over the next few months.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1258] 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded to the introduction and first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill and Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2.  
The Electoral Amendment Bill deals with the controversial Electoral Finance Act which caused a great deal of grief for a lot of New Zealanders prior to the last election. It was a commitment of the National Party going into the election to in fact 
— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Turn the page. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —sorry 
— 
advance that bill. It is our intention today to make very significant progress with the bill which will be read a first and second time this evening. 
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.
Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
[Volume:652;Page:1258] 
Address in Reply 
Presentation to Governor-General 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Address is as follows: 
ADDRESS FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
TO 
His Excellency The Honourable Anand Satyanand PCNZM QSO Governor-General of New Zealand  
YOUR EXCELLENCY— 
WE the House of Representatives thank you for the speech addressed to us when you opened this Forty-ninth Parliament. 
We assure you that the matters referred to in your speech will receive our careful consideration. 
Ko te tumanako nei kia mahi tahi tatou katoa. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That Mr Speaker accompanied by the mover and the seconder and other members of this House do present the said Address to His Excellency the Governor-General at a place and time to be appointed by His Excellency 
.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:652;Page:1219] 
Thursday 12 February 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 17 February it is the Government’s intention to progress the Electoral Amendment Bill the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill and other first readings to be introduced next week. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 Can we have an indication from the Leader of the House whether it is the intention to take urgency next week? If not it is presumably therefore the intention to allow a members’ day to occur on Wednesday as would occur under Standing Orders. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is the Government’s intention to take urgency next week. A members’ day is unlikely. It is also likely that the House will be in urgency until around 10 p.m. next Thursday night as well.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:441] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:441] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; 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 Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to insert in section 67B(1) before “notice of the termination” “written”.
Parata Hekia: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Parata Hekia: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:432] 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:417] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I want to answer a couple of the questions raised before by the member Darien Fenton—and I think she made some very good points. Not in any particular order she referred to the 200 hours’ experience and asked whether if the trial period does not work out for a young person those hours would then be included in the 200 hours’ experience. I think that is a valid point because the definition of that 200 hours’ work in the minimum wage legislation is loosely defined and it should be made more certain. It is of course not within the parameters of this bill to do that. But having said that because 200 hours’ experience is loosely defined whether it is in a trial period or otherwise I say it would still be intended for that time to be countable.  
The second question related to the definition of “employee” and whether that included a full-time equivalent a casual etc.—what that definition included. We had discussions on that and we have stayed with the definition of “employee” that is in the principal Act. That is consistent also with the definition used in many of the employment agreements.  
The other point that was raised—and I think very seriously raised by the member—was about what happens if an employer deliberately forms and I am rephrasing the words a new entity in order to try to defeat the purposes and objectives of the Act. I think that was the intention of the question. My response to that is to say it could happen at any time during an employment agreement whether or not there is a trial period. There are specific provisions in the principal Act—in Part 6A—that apply in certain circumstances in relation to restructuring with regard to vulnerable workers. But the other issue would be that the matter would possibly be challengeable under the good-faith provisions of the principal Act. The matter is covered under the principal Act as much as it can be and again I say it is not within the ambit of this bill.
English Bill: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
English Bill: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:401] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Of course the member is wrong. The Chair is free to shorten the debate if he does not like the colour of the tie of the next speaker who is taking the call. That is the definition of discretion. There are conventions about repetition and about having had a full debate and the Chairs of the Committee stage debates in the last few days have been very liberal—in my view far too liberal—in how broad they have allowed the Committee stage debates to run. It is getting close to being out of order for a member to try to put pressure on the Chair to explain the reasons for the decisions that are made. We all know that in the end either the Chair or the Speaker makes a decision and makes it for reasons that are fit and proper to his or her office and we accept it. I hope the Opposition is not embarking on a tactic of trying to pressure the Chair continually in that way. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There is nothing to rule on. There has not been a closure motion. If there is one then I will take into account at the time whether all relevant information has been supplied.
Hayes John: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Hayes John: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:391] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I have listened to nonsense all afternoon including some from that member who just sat down. You see when one looks down one end of a telescope one forgets that there is another end. When one looks down a telescope one notices a view. But if one goes to the other end of the telescope and looks down one gets a different view. Those members on the other side of the Chamber who were rejected by the people of this country—who were thrown out and pushed on to the Opposition benches—cannot take it. They do not like it. The people on that side of the Chamber are not considering the perspective that first of all under the existing law of this country any employer who wants to remove a staff member finds that it costs tens of thousand of dollars.  
In my Wairarapa electorate when farmers employ new staff give people a break and bring them into their house they may then find after some weeks that the person they thought they had is not quite the person they actually have and they may want to end the arrangement. So they go to their lawyer and what does the lawyer say? The lawyer says “Look do not challenge this personal grievance. Just write the cheque out.” For a beef and sheep farmer in hill country with big debt the $20000 cheque is far too much.  
In this country we are moving into some very difficult circumstances and I tell Mr Cullen that it was caused in part by the previous Government’s overspending. It was also caused in part by the international environment and it is acknowledged that in this country right now we are heading into higher unemployment figures. In that context we need to give every opportunity for people to be employed. Allowing employers particularly of businesses that employ fewer than 20 people to move into a no-blame arrangement for 90 days will encourage people to take up jobs and it will encourage employers to give people jobs.  
I heard on television tonight the suggestion that my colleague Anne Tolley should be lined up on the question of schoolteachers. One just has to think about the Ministry of Education as an employer; it employs many more than 20 people so its employees will not be affected. A lot of fear is being spread by Darien Fenton and her colleagues and it is completely unrealistic.  
This legislation is good for employers in the Wairarapa and it is good for employees because many more people will find real work opportunities as a result of it. I commend the Minister of Labour very highly on it.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:342] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Cullen Michael: Ministerial Statements — Financial Situation—Stability Measures 
Cullen Michael: Ministerial Statements — Financial Situation—Stability Measures 
[Volume:651;Page:317] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation of Mr English’s approach to this issue during the election campaign. It was a very difficult issue at a very specific and difficult time and it could easily have run off the rails. I would also say that if anybody ever asks me I might at some stage reveal more fully some of the other fraught circumstances that surrounded the entering into of the guarantee schemes but this is not the time for that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: In that respect you are correct: it is not the time for that. I understand that it is the intention of the Government to introduce a bill.
English Bill: Ministerial Statements — Financial Situation—Stability Measures 
English Bill: Ministerial Statements — Financial Situation—Stability Measures 
[Volume:651;Page:317] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I will be able to answer the question about the redundancy assistance package separately. The member raised a number of issues as did the spokesperson for the Labour Party. Probably the simplest answer to their question of what the Government gets in return for the guarantee is the price that the banks are being required to pay for it. It may well be useful for us to get the officials to give the parties a fuller briefing on just how that price works.  
But the member raises a number of other very perceptive and difficult questions about the impact the guarantee will have on risk and behaviour in the banking sector and I have to say I share with the former Minister of Finance his deep reluctance about going into this measure because it is hard to make it work well and even harder to get out from under it in the end. So I make that offer about the briefing and we can discuss that further. I make one other undertaking in the spirit of the process started by the former Minister of Finance: where matters of a serious nature that are related to financial stability come to our attention we will endeavour to keep contact with and brief other parties in the same way as Dr Cullen did before the election.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Ministerial Statements — Financial Situation—Stability Measures 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Ministerial Statements — Financial Situation—Stability Measures 
[Volume:651;Page:316] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for his report to the House. The guarantee schemes have been well signalled in the media and there were no surprises in the Minister’s statement this morning but it is appropriate nevertheless that it be brought to the House at the first opportunity and I thank him for doing that. I have a few questions that I would find it very helpful if the Minister could enlighten us on if he intends to take his 2-minute reply at the end of this debate.  
If we are taking a $275 billion contingent liability on New Zealand’s Crown balance sheet—and I accept that that is a worst-case number—then what are we asking for in return? This measure removes all risk for banks and depositors underwriting it by the taxpayer. How will that change risk-taking behaviour by the banks and by depositors? How will we prevent the banks from taking huge risks at our expense? New Zealand’s banks are largely owned in Australia and they repatriate their profits to their Australian owners. To the extent that this measure increases the profitability of the New Zealand banks what limits will the Minister place on the repatriation of those profits or will New Zealand taxpayers be basically sending money out of the country to the Australian owners of our banks? Will any action be taken to limit the grotesque salary packages that the chief executives of those banks are still taking now that they are in a situation where they really are not taking any risk? What form will the Reserve Bank’s increased prudential oversight take and what do we anticipate will be the results of that? What role will New Zealand play in the international discussions about better international oversight of the financial markets in order to prevent this situation from happening again?  
Finally given that we are in urgency and we are considering matters that the Government thinks are very urgent I am wondering where the package is that the Government announced before the election to help out people who lose their jobs and cannot meet their mortgage payments. That was an election promise. Are we to wait until February before legislation is introduced to help them or is something planned for next week? Is that not actually one of the more urgent things that the House should be considering at the moment?  
Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and I look forward to hearing any answers that the Minister may give us.
Garrett David: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Garrett David: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:446] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I wish to speak to the amendment in my name. The reason it is there is very simple and it is entirely consistent with the speeches that we have made earlier in the debate. In ACT’s view the bill—and I think my learned friend Mr Mallard over there might be correct that it is indeed still a bill—is designed to promote employment and is a good idea for the economy and for workers. That being the case it seems entirely silly to delay the commencement of such a sound idea as embodied in the bill until 1 April. It is very sensible in my view to advance the commencement date to 1 March. As I have said it is entirely consistent with what we have said in our contributions to both the first and second reading debates and I commend that amendment to honourable members. Thank you.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:444] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:443] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I asked you during that vote whether you were putting the amendment in my name to new section 67B(1) in clause 7. You said that you were not and that you were putting an amendment to new section 67B to add subsection (4A). I checked specifically at the time to make sure it was not the amendment that I knew I had tabled because I had written it out. You assured me it was not the amendment to section 67B(1). That means we have not yet had a vote on my amendment. I am happy to supply you with another copy; it has been on the Table for some time. Given your ruling earlier that we were not voting on it then I ask that we vote on it now.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have already dealt with the amendment to section 67B(1) and a vote was taken.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You told us you did not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The amendment you asked about was further down after we had already voted on that one.
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:443] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The question is that Part 2—
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:443] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:443] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clauses: 
7AEffect of dismissal during trial period on social security benefit entitlement 
Section 60H of the Social Security Act 1964 does not apply to any person whose employment is terminated in accordance with section 67B(1). 
7BConsequential amendment to Social Security Act 1964 
Section 60H(3)(c) of the Social Security Act 1964 is amendment by inserting the words “other than in circumstances where section 67B(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 applies to his or her loss of employment” after the word “employment”.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:443] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; 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 Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to insert the following section: 
67CTeachers to be exempted from probationary period 
Sections 67A and 67B do not apply to teaching positions at any state school as defined in section 145(1) of the Education Act 1989.