edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Burton Mark: Standards and Conformance Bill — Second Reading 
Burton Mark: Standards and Conformance Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5049] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Commerce 
: 
 I move  
That the Standards and Conformance Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those organisations from a range of sectors that made submissions to the Commerce Committee on this bill. Generally the submitters were supportive of the amendments to the Standards Act 1988 and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972 both of which are contained in this bill. I would also like to thank members of the select committee who having carefully considered the submissions reported the bill back to the House without amendment. 
As I said when introducing this bill to the House the standards and conformance infrastructure supports the New Zealand economy in many important ways. Customers here and overseas increasingly require products or services that comply with standards of quality and performance and they are looking for independent verification that they comply. The importance of the independence of that verification cannot be overstated. New Zealand’s standards and conformance infrastructure is well respected internationally and maintaining the confidence of our trading partners is of course a key purpose of the bill. 
The international norms and practices in standards and conformance have evolved since the Standards Act 1988 and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972 were last amended. It is important that New Zealand’s infrastructure remains up to date with these developments and those overseas. The provisions of the bill are also designed to ensure that the efficiency and effectiveness of the Standards Council and the Testing Laboratory Registration Council are both maintained and improved. 
Although submissions to the select committee were supportive of the technical amendments contained in the bill several raised a concern about the age of the  
New Zealand Standards Catalogue 
. That is not an issue that can be addressed through legislation. However the Government is considering this and a number of other issues in the context of a review of New Zealand’s standards and conformance infrastructure that is currently being undertaken by the Ministry of Economic Development. I expect to see the release of a discussion document relating to the review that seeks submissions from the public on those issues in the near future. The review of standards and conformance will also dovetail with the Quality Regulation Review announced by the Minister recently. 
This bill represents an important first step towards improving New Zealand’s standards and conformance system. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5048] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2 (Sharples Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2 (Harawira Flavell). 
Bill read a second time.
Turner Judy: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5047] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. My contribution will be brief as I have laryngitis. 
I will focus very briefly on the fact that we are reminding ourselves tonight of the Crown’s presumption of legal title and how that dispossessed Te Arawa. As a consequence Te Arawa endured in terms of the lakes that were precious to them the introduction of exotic fishes without their permission the issuing of fines for fishing without a licence and perhaps more devastatingly the release of sewage into those lakes. Tonight we continue the process by which that title is received back by Te Arawa in the mess that we have allowed the lakes to become. So in this brief call I just remind the House that we have an ongoing responsibility for the cleaning up of those lakes. We also need to concern ourselves with and keep mindful of the fact that there are some smaller interests within this claim who feel that their voice has not been heard. We need to make sure particularly in the Committee stage that those issues are relooked at. United Future is very happy to support the second reading of this bill.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5044] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Greens are supporting the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill and congratulate Te Arawa on negotiating a successful conclusion after such a longstanding grievance. We recognise that there are always issues with treaty settlements as a result of the Crown’s insistence on negotiating only with large natural groupings which always leaves the possibility of some groups feeling disadvantaged and brings into question the size of the mandate that has been achieved. There are some issues relating to the bill which my colleague Metiria Turei wants to raise and she will be doing that during the Committee stage. So at this stage I will simply express our support for the legislation.
Simich Clem: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5038] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further information or explanations. The member who has just concluded his speech apologised for using exactly those words earlier on so I will leave the matter exactly where it is.
King Annette: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
King Annette: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5038] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 No I did not call the member a liar; I said: “That is a lie.” Mr Finlayson had said the Labour Party was antichristian. He has no right to decide what our personal beliefs are and then to say we are antichristian. This party has Christians and people who are not Christians in it. For him to say that is unparliamentary. [ 
Interruption 
]
Connell Brian: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Connell Brian: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5038] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sure you heard Minister King use unparliamentary language. She called my colleague a liar and I would expect you to ask her to withdraw and apologise.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5033] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5033] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Question agreed to.
Vote: KiwiSaver Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: KiwiSaver Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5013] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the KiwiSaver Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Bill read a third time.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4985] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just wanted to let the House know that should Mr Parekura Horomia wish to take some extra time to give his support to the honourable Taito Phillip Field we would not object. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh sorry. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for raising it.
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:4979] 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the roster for Wanganui Hospital in the next fortnight that demonstrates that for 5 days there is no paediatrician cover at all and patchy locum cover at best. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:4968] 
4.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by the statement in the Speech from the Throne in 1999 that her Government would “restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes by keeping our promises—unlike National which constantly betrayed the electorate through the 1990s. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why does she continue to use Mr Field’s vote to prop up her Government when the allegations now being made against him are such that they damage the reputation of this Parliament? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Madam Speaker 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Prime Minister. Please be seated. Would members please respect those who are attempting either to ask questions or to answer them. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Allegations should go to the police where the police can look at them. I do not believe in trial by media. Dr Brash may think it appropriate to sack people from Parliament on allegations. We do not. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Would she consider a code of conduct for MPs as advocated by the leader of United Future the Hon Peter Dunne—perhaps as is now the case in the UK—with empowerment to investigate possible breaches of that code in order to restore confidence in the integrity of this Parliament? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As Prime Minister I am more than happy for such proposals to be considered by the Standing Orders Committee. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can we take it from the Prime Minister’s statement earlier this week—that Mr Field’s role as a Labour Party MP was “a matter for him and the Labour Party organisation to work through”—that she is asking this House and the New Zealand public to believe that it is beyond her control to deal with the fact that Mr Field’s vote is propping up her Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have constantly advised the member what my responsibilities are as Prime Minister and they have been fully discharged. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why when the allegations against Mr Field include claims of abuse of ministerial office misuse of ministerial staff and knowingly misleading ministerial colleagues is the Prime Minister not prepared to offer New Zealanders the explanation they deserve? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In case the member has not noticed Mr Field is no longer a Minister. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I repeat a question I asked the Prime Minister earlier: is she saying that although it may not be acceptable for a Minister to abuse ministerial privileges and to misuse ministerial staff it is quite in order for an ordinary member of Parliament in her party to misbehave in the ways alleged? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am pointing out to the member what my responsibilities as Prime Minister are. Can I say that unlike the Hon Nick Smith Phillip Field has not been convicted of anything.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:4967] 
3.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What recent reports if any has he received on the Gateway programme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I have received reports showing that an additional 92 schools will be joining the Gateway programme next year allowing more senior school students to gain valuable hands-on workplace experience. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What benefits for students will arise from the extension of the programme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: This means the students in nearly three-quarters of schools will now have the opportunity to participate in 1 day’s work experience a week. The scheme helps students to make better career choices and helps employers to identify and attract staff particularly in the crucial trades area. Last year 27 percent of students participating in Gateway ended up being directly employed while another 57 percent went on to further secondary or tertiary study. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Would the Gateway programme help someone like H V Ross Robertson the promoter of the code of conduct for members of Parliament have a better memory when asked questions like those put to him by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 last week as to whether he saw Thai tilers at the property of Mr Phillip Field and whether he knew that they were working for Mr Field? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No more probably than helping people to remember pushing old people downstairs.
Cullen Michael: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age  Discrimination) Amendment Bill — Referral to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
Cullen Michael: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age  Discrimination) Amendment Bill — Referral to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4965] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement reached in the Business Committee yesterday I move  
That the order of the day for the second reading of the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill be discharged and the bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Motion agreed to.
Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age  Discrimination) Amendment Bill — Referral to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age  Discrimination) Amendment Bill — Referral to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4965] 
Wednesday 30 August 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age  Discrimination) Amendment Bill 
Referral to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement reached in the Business Committee yesterday I move  
That the order of the day for the second reading of the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill be discharged and the bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Motion agreed to.
King Colin: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5100] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I was listening to that member Shane Jones across the other side of the Chamber talking about what Labour believes it knows best. I have to say the member was talking pure ideology that was so detached from the market that we live in that it was hard to swallow. He referred to members on this side of the House narrowing down their thinking; when one stops to think about it from what I have seen of the process while being in this House and listening to the debates around the Employment Relations Amendment Bill one can only ask where on earth this legislation is taking us. What is its purpose? It is hugely concerning. Where is this Government taking us? What is it trying to do? We are doing nothing more than taking a backwards step. 
I would just like to draw the member’s attention to what hard-working New Zealanders aspire to. We are aware that there have been some hard-fought realities inside our economy. Back when the Labour Government of the 1980s was in power some severe steps were taken that were necessary; it was the freeing up and opening up of the primary sector to market forces. We had to learn to stand on our own two feet. When we look at the Employment Relations Amendment Bill I am afraid we see that it is a step backwards from that. In actual fact when we look at the growth achieved in the primary sector we see that it has been upward of 4 percent per year which is absolutely outstanding. Unfortunately when we look at the domestic economy we see that it has been performing poorly at only 1.1 percent. 
What happens in the rural areas with our shearing gangs and various other contractors—whether they are pruning grapes in Marlborough or Martinborough or shearing sheep throughout the country—is that their situation is performance based. I believe that is something we must celebrate. As I come into the House having been a shearer myself I find it very very hard to comprehend that we— 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5098] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think it would be appropriate that we have a debate covering all clauses 3A 4 5 and 6. The substantive nature of the debate is in clause 4 new Part 6A and I seek leave for that purpose. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. There will be a wide-ranging debate on clause 3A clause 4 clause 5 new clause 5A new clause 5B new clause 5C and clause 6 with relevant amendments.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5098] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5097] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Motion agreed to.
Beyer Georgina: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5097] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Jones Shane: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Jones Shane: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5096] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5093] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2A be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Clause 2A agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5093] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5093] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5092] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 54 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 2 be agreed to.
Beyer Georgina: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5092] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bennett Paula: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bennett Paula: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5091] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wish to correct a statement I made earlier to the Committee. I have just been passed papers that inform me that this bill is actually the 15th amendment to the Employment Relations Act not the 14th.
Dyson Ruth: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5088] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I would like to draw members’ attention to my Supplementary Order Paper 54 where there is an amendment to the commencement date in relation to some provisions in that Supplementary Order Paper. It reads: “To omit all the words in lines 4 and 5 on page 2 and substitute the following subclauses: (1) The following provisions come into force 3 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent: (a) subpart 1A of Part 6A of the principal Act (as inserted by section 4 of this Act); and (b) sections 5A and 5B of this Act. (2) The rest of this Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” 
The primary legislation which we are debating this evening will come into force the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. That is appropriate given that the sole purpose of the primary legislation is to ensure that the law is clear and reflects the original policy intent as it was designed to do. That was not the case in reference to the appeal that my colleague Katherine Rich referred to earlier. That appeal overturned the original policy intent of the legislation and that is why we are looking at an amendment before the Committee today. 
However in my Supplementary Order Paper I am proposing a new procedure under the vulnerable workers legislation by which we ensure that employers are not tendering blind. Because this is a new provision it has not been before a select committee but it has certainly been raised before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. My colleague from New Zealand First Peter Brown has made representations to me on this very issue. But the fact that it was not notified as an amendment prior to the Supplementary Order Paper in my view warrants the consideration of the “3 months” date and that is why it is set out on my Supplementary Order Paper.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5088] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5088] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Motion agreed to.
[Volume:633;Page:5088]
Carter Chris: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Carter Chris: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5088] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Officer Presiding: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Officer Presiding: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5085] 
The CHAIRPERSON 
: Before I take the next speaker I say that I should have given some guidance at the outset. This bill is a clause by clause bill. It is in clauses so therefore the discussions should relate strictly to those clauses. Clause 1 is about the title which has four words in it. I ask that members confine themselves to the title on its own from here on.
Vote: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5084] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to.
Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5084] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I move  
That the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee 
referred to Social Services Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 4 December 2006 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).
Turner Judy: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5079] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the first reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. I will be brief; I have a touch of laryngitis. 
We consider the intentions of this bill worthy of support to be referred to the select committee for consideration. In particular we are pleased to read of the intention to streamline processes so that claims can be dealt with in a more timely manner. We are pleased that the legislation appears to be a genuine desire to tidy up many of the mechanisms that have been in obvious need of parliamentary legal tweaking. 
In particular we welcome the inclusion of information on land information memorandum reports regarding the fact that a property has been subject to a claim. There have been some very real concerns about the fact that the current provisions mean that successful claimants receive compensation not restitution. That places claimants under no obligation to use any money received to fix the damage. The leaky home problem is exacerbated when compensation is pocketed rather than used for repairs. We will indeed as has been highlighted by other people still be debating this issue in 15 to 20 years’ time if our New Zealand housing stock both privately and publicly owned is blighted with unhealthy flaws. 
United Future is happy to support the first reading of this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Bob Clarkson.
Pillay Lynne: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5071] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I listened to the opening statement from Nick Smith’s address and it was a sad chapter. What a rich thing coming from that sad man who is part of that sad party over there. I look at the sad forlorn faces of that group of members who have had to sit and listen to that waffle—to someone grizzling and whining—with not one solution in sight. 
I am really proud that this Government with support from good visionary parties such as New Zealand First United Future and the Green Party is intent on making sure it fixes things. We are sick of hearing this “Bob the Builder” approach to politics and building which is what comes out of the mouths of those people over there. The misconception is that it is a new bureaucracy. This is not a new bureaucracy. By transferring adjudication to the Ministry of Justice it increases its status and ensures that it does what the ministry does best—its core business which is settling business disputes. So that is a step forward. We can look at that step forward and realise what a major step forward we have made. 
We know that a National Government was the one that actually started all the problems by deregulating the building sector in the 1990s and by dismantling and repealing the Apprenticeship Act so that we now see a major deficiency in skills and knowledge in that industry. We know why. It is because National brought in the slash-and-burn approach during the 1990s and wrecked it all. Since then Labour has reintroduced apprenticeships and upped skills training and we are now starting to see some real credibility back in that industry. I am really proud of that. We have included the licensing of those who design and build their homes whilst at the same time protecting the do-it-yourself tradition; the review of the building code; an auditing and accreditation scheme for building consent authorities; sector and consumer education; the investigation of a home warranty insurance scheme; and building product certification. 
This will be part of a package of reforms to help ensure that homes are built right in the first place which is something we did not see under a National Government. So I feel really proud to stand in support of this bill. I heard from the previous speaker the number of Ministers who have had this portfolio. All I can say is that it has been continuous improvement. They have been Ministers who have grabbed this role and really addressed it with passion. It has culminated in the really good progressive legislation we see before this House today. I am proud to speak in support of it. Thank you.
Bennett Paula: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett Paula: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:5066] 
12.  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector 
: What recent reports if any has she received regarding relationships between the community and voluntary sector and the Government? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 I regularly receive a range of reports from officials on the relationship between the community and voluntary sector and the Government. 
Paula Bennett 
: In the voluntary sector is lafo offered at times in lieu of wages and does she consider it appropriate for a member of Parliament to accept lafo while working in the community? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: My understanding is that the issue of lafo is currently being looked at by Cabinet Office. 
Tim Barnett 
: What is the Government doing to strengthen relationships with the community and voluntary sector? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: The Labour-led Government initiated the Good Practice in Action Seminar Series which promotes positive relationships between Government agencies and the community and voluntary sector. Another excellent example of collaboration is the Keeping it Legal resource which helps community organisations better manage their legal responsibilities—over 6000 copies have been distributed and it is being reprinted. 
Paula Bennett 
: Has the Minister received any reports of voluntary labour on a significant scale from members of the Thai community being of particular benefit to one of her parliamentary colleagues and are those reports in line with her own view of how the voluntary sector should operate? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: No I have received no such reports. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Would it be in line with her own view of how the voluntary sector should operate for a group of seven Thais five of whom had received immigration assistance from Taito Phillip Field to drive 658 kilometres from Auckland to Wellington in two four-wheel drive vehicles along with their work tools to stay at the house at 57 Kinghorne Street then owned by Taito Phillip Field to do repair work involving both plastering and painting on that house before driving the 658 kilometres back to Auckland; if not why not? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: That would be a good question to put to the Minister of Labour. However I want to say that over 1 million people in New Zealand are volunteers. They provide enormous social capital to this country and we are grateful for the economic and social well-being they provide for us.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:5065] 
11.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What steps has she taken to enhance confidence in New Zealand’s financial institutions and promote business innovation? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Today I released nine discussion documents as part of the review of financial products and providers. The review is designed to develop effective and consistent frameworks for the non-bank financial sector. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the different parts of the sector that engaged so positively with the Government on developing these options and that have warmly welcomed the release of these documents today. 
Charles Chauvel 
: How does this review relate to the Government’s economic transformation agenda? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That is an excellent question. This review supports the economic transformation agenda by updating outdated legislation reducing compliance costs for business making regulation more effective and improving consumer protection. This is just another example of the Labour-led Government getting on with business and ensuring the environment for business growth is the best it can be. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister concerned that with nearly all our banks now owned by Australian interests her review will make it easier for Australian interests to now dominate the non-banking financial sector as well? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No. That is not the intention of the review. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the review in response to the recent finance company collapses? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No. The work on this review commenced in May last year and has engaged with all elements of the sectors involved in the discussion documents. Changes are proposed in these documents that may assist in improving disclosure to uninformed investors of the real risks they face when investing in products on the strength of a familiar face on TV rather than quality advice.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:5058] 
6.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on progress towards addressing skill shortages in the labour force? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Department of Labour’s  
Skills in the Labour Market 
 report released today shows that despite a strong labour market the number of firms having difficulty finding skilled staff has decreased by 59 percent over the last year and a half. This achievement is of course in the context of the lowest level of unemployment ever recorded in New Zealand at 3.6 percent. This clearly shows that the Labour-led Government’s initiatives like industry training Modern Apprenticeships and industry partnerships—policies that were anathema to the last National Government—are having an extremely positive effect on this economy. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What is the impact of this easing of the labour market on firms? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The latest  
Skills in the Labour Market 
 report which I have just referred to shows that only 15 percent of businesses say a shortage of labour was their main constraint on expansion down from 26 percent in March 2005 and down by almost half in the last 15 months. The job vacancy monitor has shown the third consecutive fall in the levels of job vacancies led by Auckland where the level of vacancies has fallen by 15 percent over the last year and the number of trainees enrolled in key trade qualifications has doubled over the last 6 years. The Government now thankfully has policies in place to support industry and this compares to the complete lack of support for the skill needs of the economy under National in the 1990s. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that answers are meant to be concise.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:633;Page:5051] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I have no idea what the courts may come up with at any time within the next few weeks; if the member is referring to another matter we have yet to see a report from the Auditor-General.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:633;Page:5051] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Could the Leader of the House indicate whether he intends to introduce validating or retrospective legislation on any subject matter during the course of this parliamentary session.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:633;Page:5051] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Standards and Conformance Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Cullen Michael: Obituaries — Lord Cooke of Thorndon 
Cullen Michael: Obituaries — Lord Cooke of Thorndon 
[Volume:633;Page:5051] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That this House place on record its appreciation of the long and distinguished service in the law of the late Rt Hon the Lord Cooke of Thorndon ONZ KBE PC including as President of the Court of Appeal and as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the House of Lords and that the House express its condolences to his family and former colleagues. 
Motion agreed to.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:633;Page:5051] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Standards and Conformance Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Could the Leader of the House indicate whether he intends to introduce validating or retrospective legislation on any subject matter during the course of this parliamentary session. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I have no idea what the courts may come up with at any time within the next few weeks; if the member is referring to another matter we have yet to see a report from the Auditor-General.
Obituaries — Lord Cooke of Thorndon 
Obituaries — Lord Cooke of Thorndon 
[Volume:633;Page:5051] 
Thursday 31 August 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Lord Cooke of Thorndon 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That this House place on record its appreciation of the long and distinguished service in the law of the late Rt Hon the Lord Cooke of Thorndon ONZ KBE PC including as President of the Court of Appeal and as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the House of Lords and that the House express its condolences to his family and former colleagues. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5175] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Standards and Conformance Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time.
Dalziel Lianne: Standards and Conformance Bill — Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Standards and Conformance Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5164] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I thank my colleague the Minister of Justice for moving the second reading of this bill on my behalf. It is certainly very pleasing to see the progress of such important legislation and I thank the Commerce Committee for the work it did on this bill. I also thank the submitters because there was a significant number of submissions in terms of legislation that was quite narrow in its construct. 
Since the time the bill was introduced into the House I have released a discussion document on the review of the standards and conformance infrastructure. I should say that it has been very well received by those who realise just how important standards and conformance are to individual businesses but more important to the economy as a whole. I would say particularly for businesses in export markets New Zealand’s standards and conformance infrastructure is extremely important. 
This bill itself represents an important first step towards improving New Zealand’s standards and conformance system and I believe that its key role is the fact that it will clarify the roles of the Standards Council and the Testing Laboratory Registration Council and improve their efficiency and effectiveness. It is important to New Zealand that these institutions maintain their high international reputation. 
To help achieve this the bill is designed to clarify that the Testing Laboratory Registration Council does not have the ability to accredit certification bodies. It confirms that the council does have the ability to accredit inspection bodies. It makes the council’s provision of certification services discretionary rather than mandatory. It clarifies and expands the scope of the Standards Council’s functions to include the preparation of codes of practice handbooks specifications and other material currently produced by international standards development bodies and it improves the nomination processes for appointments made to the Standards Council. 
The bill also contains a number of minor and technical amendments. On that basis I commend what is in fact a rather technical bill to the House.
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5164] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
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. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Employment Relations Amendment Bill with amendment and the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5163] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
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. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5163] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Motion agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5163] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Turner Judy: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5162] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak to clauses 1 and 2. In terms of the naming of this bill I suspect that the only other title I could suggest is the “Additional Resources for the IRD to Catch Liable Parents Amendment Bill”. It is not too late for the Minister in the chair Mr Benson-Pope to take a call on this. The one question I have for him is: with the new role of the commissioner that allows him or her to make determinations regarding an inquiry as to whether a liable parent is paying the right amount will additional resourcing be given to the Inland Revenue Department? I think all of us in the Social Services Committee were moved by stories of parents who knew full well that items that appeared on business returns as “plant” were often toys for the enjoyment of liable parents—and they were not declared. Those parents through business mechanisms were able to conceal their true incomes and pay the absolute minimum rate as liable parents. Those stories were very compelling. 
What this bill does—and what I was just referring to when I wanted to rename the title of the bill—is give the Inland Revenue Department the opportunity to investigate when it suspects that parents are short-changing their children on the matter of child support. But for that to work and for this amendment to be implemented one would have to assume that the Inland Revenue Department is going to add some additional staff to its current staffing levels in order to be able to police the provision so that the commissioner has some evidence and is able to instigate an investigation. The legislation will require additional resourcing. So although United Future is supportive of this bill and believes that it is very very important to create a place where liable parents who have got behind in their payments can approach the department and negotiate a point of return to a place where they are making contributions and dealing with the debt they have—this bill creates that legal opportunity for them to do that and we support that completely—we do have a concern. I call on the Minister in the chair to answer the question about whether the department plans to add additional staff to and put resourcing into the Inland Revenue Department so that the important level of investigation can happen and the commissioner is able to intervene when necessary.