edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14728] 
12. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How will she resource her goal of having 80 percent of schools operating on a fully inclusive basis by 2014? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Associate Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Education 
: Since Budget 2009 the Government has committed an additional $69 million over 4 years to provide services and support to an additional 2000 children a year. The additional resourcing is important but funding alone will not make the difference needed to achieve the goal of 80 percent of schools being fully inclusive by 2014. Positive attitudes are at the heart of achieving inclusive schools. There is already over $450 million in the special education budget and half of all schools are already fully inclusive in their practice according to the Education Review Office. 
Grant Robertson 
: Given that answer can the Minister confirm that the funding announced yesterday is the same funding that was announced in the 2009 Budget and that no new resources are being allocated to achieve the goal of more inclusive schools? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No. As I said positive attitudes are at the heart. But in addition I announced a package of $25.6 million over 4 years to give a further 1000 children access to additional individual support. I also want to put this on record: I have confidence in the leadership and the teachers in schools and in the entire community to work for the best result for every child. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister support the view of her Associate Minister that “attitudes” will be the most important factor in creating inclusive schools despite the fact that only 15 percent of the respondents to the review agreed with that while 33 percent thought funding was the priority or is this a continuation of the Prime Minister’s rescue plan for the economy: “Summer is coming.”? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Can the Minister confirm that the $2.5 million worth of funding cuts for occupational and physical therapy in schools will not be reinstated despite students parents teachers and therapists calling for it to be given back to our most vulnerable children? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: What I can say about that is that unfortunately that money was never put into the baseline of education by the previous Government. 
Lynne Pillay 
: That’s no reason to cut it. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Well it cannot be cut if it was not in the baseline.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14727] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 I certainly accept Mr Robertson’s point and we will be working to ensure that your office is properly informed Mr Speaker. I also make the point that even in terms of the delegations if one reads the question that is put down one will see that it is about resourcing. Of course the Associate Minister of Education is not responsible for the resourcing of education; that is for the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate that—[ 
Interruption 
] No I will not hear any further points on this because that last matter was not strictly a matter to do with the order of the House. The facts of the matter remain that it is up to the Government to advise its delegations of associate ministerial responsibilities. As at this moment I have not had any advised changes so the question must be addressed to the Minister of Education but it is up to the Government which Minister answers the question.
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14728] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to help the House I have taken note of that and the matter will resolved. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14727] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thank you for that statement. I guess I am seeking your assistance as an Opposition member wishing to hold to account a Minister who has made public statements and whom the Minister of Education has announced is the Associate Minister. I ask whether you as Speaker can provide some assistance to us to get from the Government the official delegations so that we can do our job and hold a Minister to account. I do not think it is good for Parliament that an Associate Minister can make statements in public and then not be held to account for them here in the House. I seek your assistance in getting those delegations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Rodney Hide briefly.
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14723] 
7. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What progress has been achieved by the Department of Corrections to improve its performance in managing parole and home detention? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am very pleased to report to the House that substantial progress has been made by Community Probation and Psychological Services since the Auditor-General identified serious shortcomings in February 2009. In September 2008 Community Probation and Psychological Services met 56 percent of its standards for parole and 52 percent for home detention. I am delighted to say that in July this year it achieved 96 percent of its parole mandatory standards—up from 56 percent—and 88 percent of its home detention mandatory standards. This is a stunning turn-round for a service that has adopted a culture of excellence accountability and professionalism. 
Todd McClay 
: That is such good news. How has Community Probation and Psychological Services been able to deliver such a significant lift in performance? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The department has been supported by an expert panel to implement a multi-year change programme to overhaul the delivery of its services. In particular it has introduced new performance standards boosted its management processes and increased staff training. This Government also injected an extra $256 million into the probation service. That has allowed 246 extra probation officers to be employed. A great deal of work has gone in over the last 2 years to lift performance and I am very very pleased with the results.
Beaumont Carol: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Beaumont Carol: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14724] 
8. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Is it her intention that the extended 90-day scheme requires agreement between the parties following bargaining in a fair way? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: It is our intention that the 90-day employment scheme requires agreement between the parties and that the negotiations on the terms and conditions as agreed between employer and employee be conducted in a fair and reasonable manner. 
Carol Beaumont 
: What avenues are there for employees to challenge the absence of bargaining to reach an agreement—for example where employers advertise or advise during an interview that the job will have a 90-day trial period and refuse to negotiate that term of employment? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Firstly it is important for the member and the House to acknowledge that this is about expanding opportunities for young people and others who want to demonstrate their value to employers. Quite clearly the case that the member asked about is one where employees have the same options in relation to any other terms and conditions. They can continue negotiating and they can choose whether they want to take up the job offer under the terms and conditions they are discussing. 
Carol Beaumont 
: How does the Minister consider that an employer stating that a 90-day trial period is a condition of employment constitutes fair bargaining? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I suppose the parallel is with those employers who say they need someone to work on a Saturday. If there cannot be an agreement on the terms and conditions then there will not be an agreement or a negotiation. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Would employers be acting within the law if they stated that a 90-day trial period is a condition of employment and then refused to consider a job applicant’s request that regular feedback on performance and opportunities for improvement within that 90-day trial period be written into the contract; if not what remedies are available for the job seeker in that situation? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The member is asking for a legal opinion in respect of that specific case. The amendments that have been made are about expanding opportunities for young New Zealanders and others to demonstrate their ability to add value to an employer’s activities.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14721] 
5. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress is the Government making in providing more surgery for New Zealanders? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House that in the last financial year more patients have received surgery than ever before. The number of patients benefiting from urgent surgery rose by nearly 4000 to over 158000 patients and the number of people coming off waiting lists and benefiting from elective surgery rose by over 8500 to 138483. This means that in the last financial year nearly 300000 New Zealand patients benefited from surgery in our public health service—the highest number ever. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What other reports has he received in relation to delivering more surgical services to New Zealanders? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The number of patients receiving a surgical specialist assessment in the last year was up by over 12000 on the previous year to over 274000 patients. This includes an increase of 1100 patients receiving first specialist assessments in Auckland an increase of 1100 in the Bay of Plenty over 2000 more in Canterbury and an increase of over 3000 patients in the Waikato. This Government is delivering more front-line services especially surgical services to the people of New Zealand. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How does the additional surgery that the Minister is crowing about of 8607 patients compare with the additional number of 11816 patients for the 2008 financial year? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Quite clearly this Government is increasing the number of elective operations for New Zealanders. Since the time of the previous Government about 20000 extra elective operations are being performed. It is a tremendous record and that member should stop trying to bring it down. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What is he going to do about the 3 percent increase in patients—that is more than 2000 people—who were admitted to hospital with preventable conditions as revealed in the annual report of the Ministry of Health for the year ended 30 June 2010; a 3 percent increase? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is why we are providing more service in the public health service than ever before with more doctors more nurses more operations and more front-line services. This Government is also investing strongly in our home insulation programme whereby five times as many homes have been insulated under this Government than under the failed crowd opposite.
Calder Cam: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Calder Cam: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14692] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 The philosopher Isaiah Berlin referred to the positive conception of liberty: not “freedom from” but “freedom to”. Imprisoned one loses the freedom of movement the freedom to associate the right to freedom of speech and many other “freedoms to”. I believe that the freedom to vote is an integral part of an individual’s liberty and an individual’s “freedom to”. The loss of freedom to vote upon going to prison is perfectly consistent with the loss of the aforementioned freedoms concomitant with a sentence to a term of imprisonment. Thank you.
Carter John: Business Statement 
Carter John: Business Statement 
[Volume:667;Page:14713] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 on behalf of the  
Leader of the House 
: I am afraid I do not know the answer to that. However the Government is taking these matters seriously. I will find out and see whether I can have the member informed about that.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Volume:667;Page:14713] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Regarding the intention of the Government to pursue the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill I wonder whether the acting Leader of the House could tell us whether the Government has had a chance to consider the amendments promoted by Mr Mallard to temper some of the sweeping powers available to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup under that legislation to ensure that the bill can return to being a bipartisan bill which it has been up until this point. I know that Mr Mallard put those amendments on the Table and if the Committee stage will take place next week that information would assist the Opposition in its planning as to whether it can cooperate with the Government on that measure.
Carter John: Business Statement 
Carter John: Business Statement 
[Volume:667;Page:14713] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
on behalf of the  
Leader of the House 
: When the House resumes next week the Government will look to progress the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill the Governor-General Bill and other Treaty settlement legislation.
Guy Nathan: Child and Family Protection Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Child and Family Protection Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14751] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave for all provisions of the bill to be taken as one question with multiple calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Robertson Grant: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Robertson Grant: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14709] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table the constitution and rules of the Otago University Students’ Association including section 5 on the question of membership and the ability to object to membership. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Are these documents in the public domain? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: They are documents of the association. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being considered. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: How many of these do you have? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: A few. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: If you want to table them I ask you to seek leave to table them all together. What are they? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Leave is sought to table the constitution and rules of the Auckland University Students Association the Waikato Student Union the Massey University Students Association the University of Canterbury Students Association the Lincoln University Students’ Association and the students association of the Auckland University of Technology; and the students association rules and constitution of Tairawhiti Polytechnic the Eastern Institute of Technology the Wellington Institute of Technology WelTec the Student Association of Nelson-Marlborough Institute of Technology SANITI and Tai Poutini Polytechnic. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14694] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Law and Order Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 39; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Question agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 64 Noes 54.
Goodhew Jo: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14694] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I regret that I inadvertently cast an incorrect vote for United Future. It should have been one vote opposed. My apologies to the House. I seek leave for it to be changed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is seeking leave for the vote to be amended. Is there any objection? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: What could be the debate about this? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is a question of whether there are instructions on this particular vote because it is quite a technical vote on the amendments being agreed to by the select committee. My understanding is that Mr Dunne actually would prefer to vote against the amendments. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will just deal with this matter very quickly. The member knows the answer to his question before he asks it. When the proxy is given to a whip to cast a proxy vote the House and the Speaker accept the word of the whip. There can be no other way for that to be done. If the member wishes to say that that is how the vote is to be cast the member’s word must be and has to be always accepted. That is the way it has always been and it will not change. Leave has been sought for the vote to be amended as agreed. Is there any objection? There being no objection the vote will be amended.
Robertson Grant: Sittings of the House 
Robertson Grant: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:667;Page:14679] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I am feeling for my colleague Paul Quinn who is about to begin speaking on his member’s bill and I wonder whether the House might rise now to allow him to start later on. I seek leave for that purpose. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
King Colin: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
King Colin: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14700] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak during the second reading of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I will make just one or two simple points. Whole blocks of the tertiary sector both polytechnics and universities currently have voluntary student membership and there is no evidence whatsoever that the outcomes of those voluntary student membership arrangements have lowered academic achievement. I put it on record that I am not against students associations but I am against compulsion and actions that take away freedom of choice from individuals. I commend this bill to the House.
Dyson Ruth: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14678] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak in the debate on the third and final reading—and in what may be the last contribution—of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. I will make a couple of points. 
Firstly I acknowledge the Government Administration Committee for its rigour and the way it undertook its consideration of this bill. My colleague Grant Robertson referred to the responsibility of people who are left alive to ensure that inheritances are as much as possible used for the purposes for which they were left. I think that is a serious responsibility for us to take. The bill as it was originally introduced was not quite tight enough in that regard so I acknowledge that improvement. 
I also acknowledge Grant’s father who as many of our parents have done left a scholarship for leadership skills. I think that Mr Robertson’s father made an important contribution for future generations and it was a really good tribute to him to have that acknowledged during the discussion in this House. 
I understand that the select committee had more advisers on the legislation than it had submissions. There was only one submission but two sets of advisers: one from the Ministry of Education and one from the Ministry of Justice. I guess the clerks were from the Government Administration Committee so the select committee was certainly well served. 
That is a very fine thing and it is why we have ended up with this bill which amends a 1910 Act to ensure that the property held by the school in trust is able to be used for slightly broader purposes than were originally intended. That is a sensible resolution; it means that under the Charitable Trusts Act the trustees will not have to apply to the High Court to approve a new trust process for any variation. This bill will now give the trustees flexibility which we are confident they will use wisely in the best interests of the school its pupils and its future. I commend the progress of this bill. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14695] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 39; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; United Future 1; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time 
Name changed to Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill.
Goodhew Jo: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14683] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to make a brief call— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to gain some advice. As I understand it it is traditional that at the very least the members of the select committee that considered the bill actually speak on it in the second reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No that is not a point of order; the member well knows that. Any member is entitled to get up and speak regardless of the position. The member knows that that is not the case. 
JO GOODHEW 
: This bill makes it clear that our democratic rights as citizens include obligations to obey the law. People who break the law and are sentenced to prison have not met those obligations and while they are in prison they should lose their right to vote. That is my contribution to the debate on this bill.
Roy Heather: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Roy Heather: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14688] 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to support the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. The ACT Party commends the sponsor of this bill Paul Quinn for bringing it to the House’s attention and for his intelligent contribution which was far different from the contributions of members opposite—apart from the previous speaker David Clendon from the Green Party. That member gave the bill proper consideration. The ACT Party will very proudly support this bill.
Young Jonathan: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Young Jonathan: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14689] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 The social contract that undergirds every stable society must balance human rights with human responsibilities or said essentially in order to participate in the process of selecting our lawmakers who shape our society one ought not to be a serious lawbreaker. That was said simply for the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.
Graham Kennedy: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14676] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party certainly concurs with the point made most recently by my colleague Grant Robertson about the need for vigilance on these kinds of bills. I must say that the Green Party has followed the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill with more interest than was originally anticipated because it contained some issues that required serious attention. 
The bill will empower the board of Christ’s College to alter the terms on which property has been entrusted to it. As such it closely mirrors private bills to expedite the handling of trusts by various church trusts such as the Anglican Presbyterian Catholic and Methodist churches. In all those previous cases the Green Party supported legislation through the House. 
The tests contained within this bill closely resemble those found within the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 particularly Part 3 but unlike previous legislation this bill at least in its original version did not contain sufficient checks and balances when changes to trust deeds were to be made. For example the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Act 2009 provides in sections 10 to 13 significant public accountability measures and section 12 provides oversight by the Attorney-General. This bill in its original version had no such similar protective checks and balances. However those shortcomings have been rectified in the course of the select committee process and we are now able to support it. 
We think it is important to ensure that any changes in future to school trusts are robust and transparent and I think that has now been attained. This is an example of the select committee process working well and we are therefore able as I think we indicated in the second reading debate to switch our policy and support the bill at its third reading.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14644] 
2. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
: What is the current status of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill? 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 The bill was reported back from the Education and Science Committee to the House on 24 September and it will have its second reading in the House this evening. I think the member might be aware of that. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can she confirm whether she has majority support in the House for the bill through all stages or just for the second reading? 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: I understand I have the confidence of National and United Future to support the bill right through.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14643] 
1. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
: What is the purpose of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill? 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 The purpose of this bill is to make students association membership voluntary beginning in 2012. No other group in society is compelled to join and pay fees to a union and students like all other members of society should enjoy freedom of association. This bill will achieve that. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the member aware that when the same provisions as in her bill were implemented in Australia 72 percent of students associations had total or near total cuts to services and is that the real purpose of the legislation? 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: No it is not. We should not sit here and try to presume what might happen. Students associations will have the opportunity to listen to their entire student membership and to put in place the services that they really want.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14641] 
9. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Does she support the Director-General of the Department of Conservation and his vision for the future of conservation in New Zealand? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Yes and in the statement of intent I agree with the vision that “New Zealand is the greatest living space on Earth.” although I prefer to say that New Zealand is the best country in the world. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Does the Minister agree with the Director-General of Conservation who said in the annual state of the environment speech that it is “a necessary investment in natural capital that sits at the base of our economy. Water soil air nutrient cycles climate regulation pollination—these and other services are the natural capital we need to survive and prosper.” contrary to the belief that “only rich countries can afford clean environments”? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I will not go through point by point the director-general’s speech. But I can tell the member that I agree with him that conservation is good for business and business is good for conservation. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Does the Minister therefore not agree with the Minister of Energy and Resources Gerry Brownlee that “it is only through a strong economy that New Zealand can afford the expenditure required to look after and improve our environment.”? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I think it is fairly patently obvious that we need a strong economy and under the current National Government we will get a strong economy—which we did not get under the previous Labour Government in 9 years. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Given her agreement why is she then giving the energy Minister who has the opposite intention the power to sign off on mineral exploration permits in the conservation estate? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I think the member is assuming far too much there. As the member knows it is proposed that access arrangements be by way of a joint decision-making process. No access can occur on conservation land without my signature. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I seek leave to table the speech given by Director-General of Conservation Al Morrison at Lincoln University on 7 October stressing the value— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14642] 
11. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Independent—Te Atatu) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is she satisfied with the progress being made to implement national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes but as the member well knows there is always room for improvement. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Does she agree that national standards by definition must be consistent across all schools to have any validity; if so can she explain to the House what steps she has taken to ensure that parents can be confident that an achieved standard at one school will be the same as that recorded at any other school? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes the standards themselves are a set of consistent expectations in reading writing and maths that show that progress by a student against those standards will enable the student to achieve National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. The standards themselves are consistent. I think the member is talking about the overall teacher judgments that will be used by the teaching profession to measure and report on progress against those standards. That is called moderation. The consistency will be supported by what is called moderation and that will be quality assured by the Education Review Office. The Ministry of Education is providing tools like exemplars to illustrate these standards; there are moderation modules for teachers; enhancements are being made to the student management system to support moderation; online moderation case studies of good practices are being provided; targeted professional development will be provided by the ministry; and there is an alignment of commonly used assessment tools. But at the end of it this Government has absolute confidence in the professionalism and expertise of our teachers to deliver those overall teacher judgments. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Could she explain to the House the rationale for sending all State and State-integrated primary and intermediate schools a letter on 8 October instructing them to put into their school charters new reporting targets for national standards by the beginning of the 2011 school year when the criteria for defining and moderating those targets have yet to be defined on a national basis? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I sent no such letter. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I seek leave to table the letter which was sent out from the Ministry of Education on 8 October to all primary and intermediate schools in New Zealand. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Bridges Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Bridges Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14642] 
10. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What changes if any is the Government making to the law relating to jurors? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am pleased to report to the House that the Government is making changes to improve jurors’ privacy and safety by removing the addresses of potential jurors from jury lists. These changes follow a recent trial during which convicted murderer George Baker who was representing himself memorised address details from a jury list and then corresponded with a juror. 
Simon Bridges 
: How will the changes depart from existing law? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Under the current law a jury list must contain the name occupation date of birth and full address of potential jurors. Amongst other things the proposed changes will remove the addresses of potential jurors from jury lists but it will allow the prosecution defence lawyer or a court-appointed adviser to defendants who are representing themselves to have automatic access to all address information on request and will prevent the accused from ever seeing potential jurors’ addresses by prohibiting the defence lawyer or court-appointed adviser from showing the address to the accused. These changes strike a balance between a juror’s right to privacy and safety and a defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:667;Page:14679] 
Sittings of the House 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I am feeling for my colleague Paul Quinn who is about to begin speaking on his member’s bill and I wonder whether the House might rise now to allow him to start later on. I seek leave for that purpose. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Hipkins Chris: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hipkins Chris: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14685] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Repeatedly through my colleague Lianne Dalziel’s speech Mr Quinn indicated that he wished to have an extension of his speaking time. I indicate to him that if he wished to seek leave to obtain that the Opposition would not object to him having an additional speaking slot— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that that is not a point of order. I tell the member that he cannot seek leave on behalf of another member. The member cannot use the point of order process for trying to indicate; there are other means of doing it. The member can send him a note. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to members that when I was speaking there were interjections. If the Speaker is speaking there will be silence.
Bridges Simon: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Bridges Simon: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14694] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I start my speech by thanking the honourable member Trevor Mallard for his very kind words about me. He is right: I was a great criminal lawyer. It is good to hear it from someone of his stature a senior member on the other side of the House. I appreciate those kind words. 
The member has challenged me effectively to come to the party and defend this bill and I say to him in all due modesty that I gave a superb first reading speech in this House that set out very clearly the rationale for this bill. If I may say so I encourage the member to read it. He will see some very good reasons why this bill with the Supplementary Order Paper that is coming will make a great deal of difference morally in this country.
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14726] 
11. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: How many applications for funding have been received by the New Zealand 2011 Festival Lottery Fund? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I am very pleased to tell the House that there has been an overwhelming response to this new fund launched by the Prime Minister and myself in July. The Department of Internal Affairs has received 482 applications for grants from around the country totalling around $70 million. There is $9.5 million available to support community festivals and events coinciding with the Rugby World Cup which can include things like concerts fairs exhibitions street markets and parades. Funding decisions will be announced in November. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What has been done to help applicants from the Canterbury region who were disrupted by the earthquake? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: The disruption to the Canterbury region meant that many groups needed extra time to prepare their applications. As Minister I announced an 11-day extension to the deadline for those in the quake-affected area to ensure that Cantabrians had a fair go. We want to ensure that every region in New Zealand makes the most of the Rugby World Cup next year. 
Chris Hipkins 
: When Murray McCully told him to establish the New Zealand 2011 Festival Lottery Fund to prop up John Key’s ever-diminishing party central plans did he point out to him that establishing this fund would result in less money being available for many worthy community groups that rely on lottery grants for their survival; if he did not will he concede that had a stronger Minister been in office these groups may well have been better off? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I cannot believe the stupidity of that question. But can I answer it by trying to reassure that young member of this House that increased revenue for the New Zealand Lotteries Commission means that all other committees are getting the same allocation as last year—$153 million. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What criteria does he have in place to ensure that applications submitted to the fund by Maori recognise their unique contribution as tangata whenua? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: That member will be pleased to know that the guidelines for the independent committee specifically require it to recognise the needs and aspirations of Maori and their protocol. The festival’s events are about involving communities and showcasing New Zealand’s culture so I am sure that Maori will play a very important role in the Rugby World Cup.
Cosgrove Clayton: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14685] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not wish to trifle with your ruling but I think the point of order that Mr Hipkins was making—and you yourself have said that you like to see things flow and have flexibility—was of the best intentions. The member had indicated and Mr Hipkins was quite happy to facilitate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is trifling with my ruling. The member knows that when a matter has been dealt with it is closed. We are not going to have things relitigated here. Once a decision has been made the decision has been made. It is not subject to a second opinion; that is it the matter is closed. When the member says that he is not trifling with the Speaker’s ruling he is doing exactly that. His statement that he was not doing that does not fool the Speaker into believing something different. The member was seeking to trifle with my ruling. The matter is closed.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:667;Page:14713] 
Thursday 21 October 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
on behalf of the  
Leader of the House 
: When the House resumes next week the Government will look to progress the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill the Governor-General Bill and other Treaty settlement legislation. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Regarding the intention of the Government to pursue the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill I wonder whether the acting Leader of the House could tell us whether the Government has had a chance to consider the amendments promoted by Mr Mallard to temper some of the sweeping powers available to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup under that legislation to ensure that the bill can return to being a bipartisan bill which it has been up until this point. I know that Mr Mallard put those amendments on the Table and if the Committee stage will take place next week that information would assist the Opposition in its planning as to whether it can cooperate with the Government on that measure. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 on behalf of the  
Leader of the House 
: I am afraid I do not know the answer to that. However the Government is taking these matters seriously. I will find out and see whether I can have the member informed about that.
Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14406] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. I note that time is running out and that the Deputy Speaker will be leaving the Chair shortly. As pointed out by the Hon Ruth Dyson the Health Committee worked extremely well together and collaboratively on this very technical bill. It is a bill that came about after media inquiries alerted the Minister of Justice that clinics acting in good faith could be illegally storing gametes. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14403] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Motions — Food Standards—Folic Acid in Bread 
Vote: Motions — Food Standards—Folic Acid in Bread 
[Volume:667;Page:14357] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 77 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5. 
Motion not agreed to.
Power Simon: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Power Simon: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14403] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill clarifies the primary Act to reflect the intent of Parliament when it was passed in 2004. As enacted the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act provides for a 10-year storage limit on gametes and embryos including a mechanism to approve extensions. Though the common understanding was that this storage period would operate from the date of enactment in 2004 a recent legal opinion interpreted the storage period as beginning on the date of storage even if storage occurred before the Act. In short although most couples with stored gametes thought they had at least until 2014 to decide what to do with them some of that matter stored prior to the Act may be already past their storage limit. This means that the current law would require these stored gametes and embryos to be discarded immediately contrary to the intent of Parliament. This amendment bill corrects that error. 
I am grateful to the Health Committee for its prompt and valuable contribution to the development of this bill. I would also like to express my thanks to all the submitters on the bill. Those who have particular expertise in this field have helped with thoughtful input and have made the bill stronger. 
The bill clarifies a number of other matters relating to storage including a new 6-month grace period after the storage period expires which gives the fertility clinic that is storing gametes or embryos a reasonable time to dispose of them. The bill elucidates the powers and duties of the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology when approving changing or cancelling storage extensions. The bill also clarifies how the 10-year storage limit is calculated when gametes or embryos have been stored outside New Zealand. Finally the bill ensures that the principal Act’s enforcement provisions are available where any storage contravenes the storage provisions of the Act. Making these rules as clear as possible is most important for the participants in what is a very emotive and emotional process where expectations are critical. I commend this bill to the House.