edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4707] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have made a couple of comments during questions to members about the number of supplementaries the way in which questions can be asked the narrowness of some of those questions and other such remarks. The Standing Orders do not differentiate substantially in any way at all between questions to Ministers and questions to members. In fact a section of the Standing Orders deals with questions to Ministers and members. Having stated who they are and in what circumstances those questions would be answered all of the Standing Orders are then applied it would seem to both types of question. 
I do not detect anywhere in the Standing Orders where it states that should a chairperson of a select committee not be present in the House a question cannot be answered by another member—presumably the deputy chairperson of that select committee. If in fact the ruling you have given is correct where do we go in the Standing Orders to have that ruling backed up? If it is a Speaker’s ruling I cannot find in  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 either where that particular requirement is set down. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member.
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4707] 
4.  
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Health Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill? 
SUE KEDGLEY (Chairperson of the Health Committee) 
: 
 The Health Committee has received 41 submissions on the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is the last supplementary question. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How will the Health Committee’s busy schedule accommodate the hearing of submissions on this bill? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: The Health Committee does have a busy schedule as we are in the middle of hearing our inquiry into the obesity and type 2 diabetes epidemics in New Zealand and we have 12 petitions before us. However we are hoping to hear submissions on the member’s bill in October. I might add that despite the Health Committee’s busy schedule we are always keen to have briefings from Ministers and we are looking forward to a briefing from the Minister of State Services who declined to appear before our committee during the estimates hearings to brief us on the Trans-Tasman therapeutic goods agency.
Bennett Paula: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Bennett Paula: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4704] 
1. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill 
: Who is the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill intended to help? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP ( 
Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill 
) 
: 
 The bill is particularly designed to help young people to get their first job—especially Maori youth who have an unemployment rate of 26.9 percent for those aged 15 to 19. It is also intended to help migrants. I am sure that Thai painters would value being treated as employees because they would be entitled to minimum wages. 
Paula Bennett 
: Why does the current legislation not work? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The current law makes it much harder for employers to take a chance on new employees especially if they do not have a work history. But of course there are protections including those for sick leave holiday pay anti-discrimination provisions and minimum wages—all of which of course would have been appreciated by Thai painters. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers has the member any solid evidence that suggests the potential employees he wishes to assist want this legislative type of assistance; if so will he produce it? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There are literally hundreds of submissions before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which in many cases I have read. They indicate that smaller employers especially want to have the legislation so they can give a chance to new employees—to take the risk when they otherwise would not do so. 
Darien Fenton 
: I seek leave to table a report where National MP Paula Bennett expressed her concern regarding the fate of workers who could be dismissed for refusing to undertake unsafe work should her colleague Dr Wayne Mapp’s Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill become law. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
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:633;Page:4702] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 What advice if any has he received—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A couple of days ago I was removed from this House—I still do not know why. [ 
Interruption 
] Here we go again. That is the second example. When I was asking my question the Deputy Prime Minister said something. We have been told by you that we have to play the game according to the Standing Orders. Hopefully on this very occasion you will ask the Deputy Prime Minister to remove himself from the Chamber for that infraction. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I withdraw and apologise for the comment which was somewhat unseemly. But in fact Madam Speaker you ruled the other day that the rules on question time have slightly changed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Exactly. I shall give the member a copy of my ruling. I am not sure whether he was in the Chamber when I made it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Rules for some and rules for others. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; would the member please withdraw and apologise. I made a lengthy statement upon which there was a considerable amount of discussion on this point. So would the member please withdraw and apologise for the comment he made about the Speaker. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I just did. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear it. Would you please do it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I withdraw and apologise. What advice if any has the Minister of Maori Affairs received from his ministry on—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members are allowed to chatter; they do it all the time. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh well; that is fine. I cannot wait until the next question time on the next sitting day.
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:633;Page:4701] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to hold question No. 12 over to the next sitting day so that the Minister of Maori Affairs has time to be here. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4701] 
11.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What reports if any has she received on the rules governing mergers that relate to trans-Tasman businesses? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Last week the chairs of the New Zealand Commerce Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission reached agreement on a protocol to enhance cooperation when dealing with trans-Tasman business mergers. The outcomes of the protocol are expected to synchronise the timing of mergers the sharing of information and the sharing of agency analysis and assessment of transactions—more good news for business under a Labour-led Government. 
Maryan Street 
: What alternative approaches has she seen to promoting trans-Tasman businesses? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have seen reports of an approach based on travelling to Australia to criticise New Zealand and Australian newspapers. I have also seen a report that suggests that making comments in foreign newspapers that could jeopardise New Zealand trade is a form of treason. I do not support either of those approaches of Dr Don Brash. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that those arrangements are being put in place to facilitate the reverse takeover of Air New Zealand by Qantas? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister have concerns around the ability of New Zealand businesses to compete in the trans-Tasman market and is she confident that the business tax review will make a positive difference in this regard; if so how? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Despite some commentary that suggests that doing business in Australia is easier than doing business in New Zealand trans-Tasman companies know that is not the case. When components of the business tax review are implemented doing business in New Zealand will be even easier. For example New Zealand firms do not pay payroll taxes compulsory superannuation or stamp duties on property sales—the list goes on.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4699] 
Clearly as the Minister is in such a generous frame of mind with regard to information I want you to give the House some advice as to whether we can now expect that the Minister of Immigration will answer quite specific questions about individual cases before him since he feels free to make details of those representations by members of Parliament available to the House on a gratuitous basis. I want your assurance that you will require him to give those detailed answers in future should we seek them by way of questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I suggest that the member ask any such questions if he so wishes in the future and rulings will be given in accordance with whatever the answers are. It is not for the Speaker to give hypothetical rulings.
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4698] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to give a considered ruling on a matter that has come up to do with question time today and I refer particularly to questions that have been asked of the Minister of Immigration. Normally if a particular case was the subject of questions the Minister would advise the House that he was not prepared to provide information to the House in relation to a particular case and would require that the House accept a response couched in fairly general terms. Today on a couple of occasions we have had the Minister not having been asked about any particular cases offer to furnish to the House information not so much about those cases but about the representations that have been made in relation to those cases by members on this side of the House.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4692] 
5.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What steps is the Government taking to utilise Enhanced Taskforce Green to assist farmers affected by recent adverse weather? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House that the Government has approved up to $500000 for Enhanced Taskforce Green support to assist farmers with clean-up activities required as a result of the South Island snow and the lower North Island storm and flood events. This programme is cleaning up to date over 100 properties. This includes 36 properties in the Mackenzie district 20 in the Wairarapa and 35 I believe in Taranaki and Wanganui. 
Jill Pettis 
: What type of assistance is Enhanced Taskforce Green providing to those farmers? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Enhanced Taskforce Green is being used to pay for around 70 workers to undertake clean-up activities and get farms back to operational levels. Traditionally unemployed people have been used for Enhanced Taskforce Green but because we are experiencing record low unemployment we are also able to support displaced farm workers by hiring them for this programme. The scheme also provides funds to hire or purchase light equipment and to assist each of the councils involved. I am informed by Brian Doughty who is the Federated Farmers clean-up coordinator in the South Taranaki Wanganui Rangitikei area that Work and Income is doing exceptionally well with regard to the roll-out of Enhanced Taskforce Green.  
R Doug Woolerton 
: How is the eligibility for Enhanced Taskforce Green assistance assessed? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Enhanced Taskforce Green does not have any stand-down requirement and because of the extra capacity including the administrative capacity we do have the opportunity to get people on to those farms immediately. That is what is happening.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4688] 
1. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing to lift numeracy standards? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Last week I announced the results of the numeracy professional development project. The project showed major improvements in maths results across the 400 schools involved last year the highest improvement being amongst students who were previously the lowest achievers. There was also a lift in achievement across particularly Maori and Pasifika students. This project has been strongly endorsed across the education sector including the more than 1600 schools that have now been involved since the year 2000 and shows that we can now expect steady improvement in the achievement of students in the area of numeracy. 
Moana Mackey 
: What else is the Government doing to ensure it meets its goal of ensuring that all students are able to achieve high standards in numeracy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: A great deal. We ensure that every teacher has the tools to diagnose the learning needs of students through assessment tools such asTTle. We invest $20 million a year in professional development projects that give teachers the skills they need to lift the numeracy standards of young people. Through the new curriculum we have set out the numeracy achievements we expect schools to deliver for students at each level. For the first time we have numeracy standards under National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 1 and university entrance. Our investment in numeracy goes alongside our investment in literacy to create a strong foundation for all New Zealanders to succeed in the school system. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that numeracy covers only two of the five strands of the mathematics curriculum requirements; and how does the laudable emphasis on numeracy gel with the possibly contradictory expectation that schools deliver a balanced curriculum? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I can confirm the first part of the member’s question. But I draw his attention to the fact that with the way the curriculum is now structured we are expecting students to be able to do a range of knowledge-area skills and competencies within the classroom by for example doing inquiry forms of learning which might combine science with maths and English and would bring them up to the appropriate standard across those subject areas.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Leave to Move Motion Taito Phillip Field—Referral of Ingram Report to Privileges Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Leave to Move Motion Taito Phillip Field—Referral of Ingram Report to Privileges Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4687] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave of the House to move a motion that was lodged with the Clerk’s Office this morning and will appear on the Order Paper for the next sitting day of the House. It reads that this House expresses its deep concern at the allegations left unresolved against Taito Phillip Field in the report of Noel Ingram QC and notes that the reputation of the whole of Parliament and each of its members will suffer serious damage until such allegations are properly resolved and therefore refers the Ingram report to the Privileges Committee with the direction that it should make such inquiry as necessary to provide this House with full and final resolution of the matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Leave to Move Motion Taito Phillip Field—Referral of Ingram Report to Privileges Committee 
Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Leave to Move Motion Taito Phillip Field—Referral of Ingram Report to Privileges Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4687] 
Points of Order 
Taito Phillip Field—Leave to Move Motion 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move without debate the motion in my name members’ notice of motion No. 4 on the Order Paper today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Taito Phillip Field—Referral of Ingram Report to Privileges Committee 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave of the House to move a motion that was lodged with the Clerk’s Office this morning and will appear on the Order Paper for the next sitting day of the House. It reads that this House expresses its deep concern at the allegations left unresolved against Taito Phillip Field in the report of Noel Ingram QC and notes that the reputation of the whole of Parliament and each of its members will suffer serious damage until such allegations are properly resolved and therefore refers the Ingram report to the Privileges Committee with the direction that it should make such inquiry as necessary to provide this House with full and final resolution of the matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Leave to Move Motion Taito Phillip Field—Referral of Ingram Report to Privileges Committee 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Leave to Move Motion Taito Phillip Field—Referral of Ingram Report to Privileges Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4687] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move without debate the motion in my name members’ notice of motion No. 4 on the Order Paper today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:633;Page:4687] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Local Government and Environment Committee must finally report the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill to be extended to 21 November 2006. This should have been notified to the Business Committee on Tuesday I understand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:633;Page:4687] 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Local Government and Environment Committee must finally report the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill to be extended to 21 November 2006. This should have been notified to the Business Committee on Tuesday I understand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:633;Page:4687] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Wednesday 23 August. This will be because of the State luncheon for the new Governor-General. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:633;Page:4687] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Wednesday 23 August. This will be because of the State luncheon for the new Governor-General. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:633;Page:4687] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am sorry to disappoint the member. I think that is most unlikely at this point.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:633;Page:4687] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 We note that on the Order Paper there are only at this stage some 20 items that are Government bills. One of the bills is the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill which has been on the Order Paper I think since 1998. There is also at No. 14 the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill which we note has somewhat languished on the Order Paper since the proclamations post the 2005 election. Can the Leader of the House indicate whether our opposition to this bill will have a hearing on the floor of Parliament in the next 4-week sitting?
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:633;Page:4687] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will begin a 2-week adjournment period. When the House resumes the priority for the first couple of weeks will be the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) the Meat Board Amendment Bill the Standards and Conformance Bill and any high-priority legislation that has been reported back from the select committees. The first Wednesday of course is a members’ day.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:633;Page:4687] 
Thursday 3 August 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will begin a 2-week adjournment period. When the House resumes the priority for the first couple of weeks will be the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) the Meat Board Amendment Bill the Standards and Conformance Bill and any high-priority legislation that has been reported back from the select committees. The first Wednesday of course is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 We note that on the Order Paper there are only at this stage some 20 items that are Government bills. One of the bills is the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill which has been on the Order Paper I think since 1998. There is also at No. 14 the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill which we note has somewhat languished on the Order Paper since the proclamations post the 2005 election. Can the Leader of the House indicate whether our opposition to this bill will have a hearing on the floor of Parliament in the next 4-week sitting? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am sorry to disappoint the member. I think that is most unlikely at this point.
Tisch Lindsay: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Tisch Lindsay: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:633;Page:4827] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Yes I confirm that that is the next members’ day. The member is not present and I am moving the motion on his behalf. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: And the member agrees? The member has given his consent? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Yes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has consented. 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Hughes Darren: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:633;Page:4827] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I assume the chief Opposition Whip is doing this on the basis that the member in charge of the bill is not present to move the motion for the first reading. The bill would be deferred until the next members’ sitting day? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is what he indicated yes.
Tisch Lindsay: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Tisch Lindsay: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:633;Page:4827] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Under Standing Order 71 there is an option to postpone the bill. Looking at Speaker’s ruling 23/1 I move  
That the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith be postponed until 6 September being the next members’ day which the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings provide for.
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4827] 
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.
Fenton Darien: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Fenton Darien: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4827] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
referred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
.
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4826] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7. 
Bill read a first time.
Hartley Ann: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4825] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is lucky to remain here because he is contesting my ruling. I have already ruled on the matter. It is not a precedent; matters are dealt with as they are seen by Speakers. As I said before this member was lucky to get away with just being asked to leave the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is the member contesting my ruling? 
Phil Heatley 
: No I have further information Madam Assistant Speaker that I think you need to be privy to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I will not countenance any further discussion. 
Phil Heatley 
: But it is not contesting your ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I will not countenance any further discussion on this issue. It has been decided.
Mapp Wayne: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4825] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will be well aware of the practice of Speakers to do reconsiderations in circumstances like this. I have been in the House a number of years and I have certainly seen Speakers do that. I put it to you Madam Assistant Speaker that it would be appropriate to follow the precedents of other Speakers in these kinds of circumstances.
Tisch Lindsay: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4825] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for Dr Nick Smith to be allowed to return to the House to take a 10-minute call on the bill in his name and for him to make a 5-minute reply at the end of that debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that matter. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The matter is dealt with Dr Mapp. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Madam Assistant Speaker I do not often take points of order but I do wish to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated. I will not tolerate any further discussion on this issue. [ 
Interruption 
] The member assures me that it is a new point of order.
Hartley Ann: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4825] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: First another member can move the bill but what I would say to the National Party whip is that the member’s behaviour was grossly disorderly and he was lucky to get away with just having to leave the House. So the request is not granted by me. Does the member wish to put it as leave?
Tisch Lindsay: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4824] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I accept your ruling Madam Assistant Speaker. The member’s bill that we are about to debate is in Dr Nick Smith’s name. I ask that leave be granted for him to make his 10-minute speech. It is his bill; it has been drawn out of the ballot and he has put much time and effort into it. I ask for your reconsideration to enable him to speak for his 10 minutes and following that to leave the House then to return for his 5-minute right of reply.
Hartley Ann: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4824] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has been advised that he is out of the House until 10 o’clock so I ask him to leave. Members will please be seated until the member leaves. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.
Hughes Darren: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4824] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I see that the member for Nelson the Hon Dr Nick Smith has come into the Chamber. I understood very clearly that he was suspended from the House or was asked to withdraw from the House this afternoon for the remainder of the sitting day because of his behaviour so I am very surprised to see him in here right now.
Copeland Gordon: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4818] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. Firstly I congratulate Darien Fenton on having a bill drawn in the ballot. I know from my first term in Parliament that it is always quite a thrill. It would be like winning Lotto. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: In your first term? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I had two in my first term actually. One bill has gone to the select committee and is still languishing there and the other was voted against by both National and Labour. But that is another story for another day. 
I think the principle of ensuring that all people in New Zealand undertaking work receive the minimum wage is a sound one based on social justice and all New Zealanders want to ensure that—at least insofar as Parliament can ensure—people receive a minimum rate of pay for the work they do. Of course many people fall below an acceptable standard of living in any event because of addictions family problems and all sorts of other things that are part and parcel of the human condition. We can do nothing about that through legislation but we can at least say there is a basic minimum wage below which we are not prepared to see anyone fall. I think that from that point of view there is an issue the bill addresses. 
Having said that however we also acknowledge the other side of the coin and that is traditionally the situation when for example I call for tenders for people to paint my house and I get four or five prices. I look at all the people to see whether they have some general competence in painting decide to accept a price and expect my house to be painted for that price. If it ends up that the person doing the painting works twice as many hours as he or she forecast when putting the contract in place—which may mean that on an hourly basis the person gets well below the minimum wage—then under our system that is kind of tough. So the person has to be experienced enough to try to figure that out correctly and ensure a sufficient wage. 
When we consider the practicalities of trying to put in place a bill like this we may just find that it is not practicable to do so. Bearing the pluses and minuses in mind United Future has decided it will vote for this bill to go to the select committee. That will at least give people an opportunity to make submissions and for the committee to see whether the bill is sound or fundamentally flawed. In saying that I also need to signal that our support is for the first reading only and is not assured beyond that stage.
Vote: Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4815] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Westpac New Zealand Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Westpac New Zealand Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4809] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Westpac New Zealand Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 119 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time.
Copeland Gordon: Westpac New Zealand Bill — Second Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Westpac New Zealand Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4802] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call on the Westpac New Zealand Bill firstly to say that we have in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand a world-class institution. In previous lives before coming to Parliament I was aware of some of the work the bank does in its prudential supervision role of the New Zealand banking system. It is at the bank’s request and at its initiation in undertaking that role that we have this bill before us. The Reserve Bank had formed the view—and I think quite correctly—that a mere branch of a major Australian bank operating in New Zealand with hundreds of thousands of New Zealand customers and answerable completely as a branch to the board of Westpac based in Australia—if you like in a foreign jurisdiction—has risks from the point of view of people depositing with that bank in this country. 
For example if the Westpac Banking Corporation holding company the bank that actually runs the operation in Australia were to come under stress for whatever reason which could perhaps be completely unrelated to anything happening in this nation then under the four pillars policy of the Australian Government it is my understanding that Australian depositors in Westpac would be given preference over New Zealand depositors in the New Zealand branch of the Westpac Banking Corporation. That of course is a most unsatisfactory situation from the point of view of New Zealand depositors. In fact it is the Reserve Bank’s role to protect those depositors. 
I say in all honesty that those of us who were at the Finance and Expenditure Committee when the bill was considered would find the comments of the previous speaker Rodney Hide somewhat strange and I would have to say greatly misinformed. Why that should be probably has something to do with his preoccupation with dancing during the relevant period. 
But the reality is that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has a thing called a capital adequacy ratio. Therefore when this new bank is incorporated in this country the Reserve Bank will ensure that the capital which is the difference between the assets and the liabilities of the bank will be sufficient and in line with best banking practice. Exactly the same thing will occur if Westpac New Zealand has to settle a large tax bill. To the extent that doing that drains the local company’s capital—[ 
Interruption 
]—it will be required I tell Mr Hide to inject new capital so that the protection of its New Zealand depositors is continued long on. So really the pride the ACT party has in its lone voice on this issue is I think somewhat misplaced and perhaps a humbler approach would be more appropriate in the circumstances. 
With those few words I just say that United Future will support the second reading of this bill. We will support it going through all its remaining stages in the House which I understand will be on the next members’ day 6 September.
Hobbs Marian: Westpac New Zealand Bill — Second Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Westpac New Zealand Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4798] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Westpac New Zealand Bill be now read a second time 
. This private bill promoted by the Westpac Banking Corporation provides the mechanism to enable Westpac Banking Corporation’s retail business in New Zealand to be vested in a New Zealand incorporated subsidiary—Westpac New Zealand Ltd. Westpac Banking Corporation has operated in New Zealand since 1861 and currently operates in New Zealand as a branch of the Australian parent. The establishment of a subsidiary enables Westpac to comply with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s local incorporation policy introduced in 2003. That policy provides that foreign-owned banks over a certain size are required to establish a New Zealand subsidiary with its own board of directors members of which are required to comply with New Zealand company law. 
I wish to offer particular thanks to members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee who ensured the timely return of this legislation to the House. Their work on this bill has gone a long way to help Westpac New Zealand Ltd meet its intention to allow the transfer of its assets and liabilities on 1 November 2006. 
When I moved the first reading of this bill I noted that Westpac and the Reserve Bank negotiated for some time over whether it would be necessary for Westpac to establish a subsidiary or whether there was another suitable solution. Ultimately the Reserve Bank was not satisfied that another suitable solution could be found so this bill creates a legal framework for the vesting of assets of Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand retail business into a New Zealand company Westpac New Zealand Ltd. The select committee was advised that the Reserve Bank Treasury and the Inland Revenue Department agree that legislating is the best way of transferring the relevant parts of Westpac New Zealand’s business to the new entity. The committee has also been assured that Westpac New Zealand Ltd’s application to be registered as a bank will be assessed against the Reserve Bank’s standard requirements and that registration will need to occur before the transfer of assets and liabilities facilitated by the bill takes place. 
It has needed a very tight and intricate time frame to get all the actions within the correct time sequence but the public should take comfort that the change in corporate form of the New Zealand branch of Westpac will have no adverse effect on Westpac’s customers employees and suppliers of services or its ability to meet its obligations to Government entities. Four technical amendments were proposed; those have been accepted by the committee and are laid out in the bill. 
Once again I offer my thanks to the committee for its thorough examination of this bill and for the timeliness of it. I ask the House to move this bill through the remaining stages as expeditiously as possible in order to meet Westpac’s finely balanced time line.
Woolerton R Doug: General Debate 
Woolerton R Doug: General Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4797] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has received a number of emails and letters in recent weeks in a campaign to influence its voting. We have been quite saddened by the language used in emails and letters during this campaign which appears to us to be threatening and that recalls the language used to remember those who died serving their country during wartime: “We will remember them.” We think this is in bad taste. However we want to quietly and respectfully remind Grey Power and these campaigners that they should remember a few things as they embark on this operation. 
The first thing they should remember is that New Zealand First fought the Shipley Government tooth and nail when it tried to cut superannuation. Let them remember that New Zealand First introduced the compulsory superannuation debate provided an extra $252 million for elective surgery funded 32000 more operations and provided free influenza vaccinations for the elderly. Let them remember that New Zealand First budgeted for the removal of income and asset testing for elderly care. This was so distasteful to the Shipley Government that it overturned it when we got out of the coalition. 
Let them remember that New Zealand First removed the superannuation surtax after superannuitants were betrayed by both Labour and National on this issue. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: That’s a big one. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: My colleague says it was a big one and it was. Let them remember that New Zealand First has worked for them by increasing the minimum rate of superannuation up to 66 percent of the net average wage. Let them remember that New Zealand First has gained a significant increase in funding for elder care in this year’s Budget. Let them remember that the golden age card which New Zealand First promised during the last election campaign will become a reality by late 2007 and will provide a range of private sector entitlements and commercial discounts. 
Let them remember that New Zealand First has listened to the concerns of the elderly regarding law and order and has delivered policies to address those concerns—notably 1000 extra police on the beat by 2008. Let them remember that New Zealand First shares their concerns about social policy and strategic asset sales and has put the brakes on those issues. Let them remember that New Zealand First is working for them and will never forget them. And today we have instituted an independent public inquiry into local government rates. That will do a darn sight more with due respect for rates in this country than Rodney Hide’s proposed bill. 
In closing I suggest to Grey Power that if all its members who threatened to withdraw their votes from us had voted for us at the last election we would have substantially more than seven MPs in Parliament. I tell Grey Power that New Zealand First has taken this time in a general debate to remind it about those things and that at least Grey Power still has one party in Parliament that is on its side and it should not take that fact lightly. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Robertson H V Ross: General Debate 
Robertson H V Ross: General Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4796] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I say to him that Standing Order 116 concerns personal reflections. If any indication is given as to courage then that of course is a matter that could well come within Standing Order 116 because to imply that a member lacks courage is a personal reflection and out of order. Having heard what the member said and the ruling that was given before I will certainly ensure that it is given further consideration.
Williamson Maurice: General Debate 
Williamson Maurice: General Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4795] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would ask you to give this issue a considered ruling at some time later. It is to do with a matter that arises in the House from time to time—in my 20 years I have heard it raised a lot—when a member tries to accuse another member of this House of lacking courage. I have heard you on a number of occasions pull up members—and I have heard other presiding officers do so as well—and say that a member cannot question whether another member is lacking in courage or say he or she has no courage and so on. I know that people who have called someone “spineless” “yellow” or any of the other words like that have been pulled up immediately by successive presiding officers. 
However when I look first of all at the Standing Orders and then at  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 I find it very difficult to find a specific Speaker’s ruling that refers to this. A number of rulings refer to whether someone is being influenced by something outside the House by way of financial or other pressures that may be on him or her. In order that we may get some clarity and maybe even a Speaker’s ruling in the book I would like you Mr Assistant Speaker to give this House a ruling as to whether a member can question when he or she is in a debate a member’s courage. 
We have heard Moana Mackey today say the Leader of the Opposition “does not have the guts”. I think that remark stands alongside “yellow” “spineless” or the “jellyfish” word and alongside all of those other words that have been ruled out from time to time. I seek a ruling from you Mr Assistant Speaker even if you do not give it to us now but take some time over it. If it is wrong for members in this House—and I think it has been wrong all along—to question whether a member lacks courage or has courage then it is right that you give us a ruling that what Moana Mackey said today about the Leader of the Opposition was also outside the Standing Orders and that she should be made to withdraw and apologise.