edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:8954] 
3.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he propose to introduce legislation repealing the law on sedition? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. The matter was signed off yesterday by Cabinet and I will be introducing a bill to the House following appropriate consultation. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Minister concede that the reason that this decision has been brought forward from the original October response date that he announced at the time the Law Commission’s report was released is the call by United Future the Greens ACT and the Maori Party for urgent action on this question; and can he indicate to the House given the lightness of the timetable of the legislative programme and the fact that the Law Commission has already drafted the bill precisely when the bill will come before the House? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As much as I hate to rain on the member’s parade I can say that the matter came forward as soon as it was ready. This was a simple matter and I think the member will recall that on the day the report was tabled I made the comment publicly that the commission had made a compelling case and that I expected the bill to receive wide support in the House. I would anticipate that with the agreement of the Leader of the House the bill will come before the House quite soon. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Why then if this is all so urgent and immediate did the Minister say at the time the original report was tabled that he would be responding in October which is still many months away? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I would be happy to be corrected but I believe I simply indicated to the House that the Government was required to respond by October. If I said “in October” then I apologise to the member but I was certainly indicating to the House that there is a statutory obligation to respond within the 6-month time limit. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister’s bill removing the sedition provisions in the Crimes Act also remove the remaining thought crime provision in the Act that in section 123 ”Blasphemous libel” which not only undermines the separation of church and State but can also put people in prison for criticising certain religious institutions or practices? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I do not have the draft bill with me in the House but my best recollection is that the matter the member raises is somewhat outside the scope of the bill and the report from the Law Commission. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table the joint statement by United Future the Greens ACT and the Maori Party on 24 April explaining how freedom of expression is compromised— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Vote: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Vote: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9027] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Report adopted.
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Tranz Rail Shares—Insider Trading 
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Tranz Rail Shares—Insider Trading 
[Volume:640;Page:9949] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am informed by my colleague just on a matter of fact that the matter is still in front of the Commerce Committee until Thursday. It has not actually deliberated on these matters.
Turei Metiria: Wills Bill — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Wills Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10010] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I will be brief. I want to thank both the Minister in the chair Rick Barker and Chris Finlayson for their comments on my amendment. I will refer briefly to Chris Finlayson’s point about 12 and 13-year-olds. Although his point is a bit understandable it is not a good justification for opposing my amendment in and of itself. The circumstances in which 12 and 13-year-olds find themselves with dependent children are extremely rare even in this country and those very very exceptional cases should not be sufficient justification to deny those 16 and 17-year-olds—who do have children more often than 12 and 13-year-olds—the chance to be legally part of the adult community. 
The fact is that large numbers of young people still have children very early. It does affect Maori and I think Pacific young people—but particularly Maori—in terms of having children younger than the Pakeha population. So there is an issue here. There is a reasonable number of 16 and 17-year-olds having children who now still will not have the legal entitlement to make a will and I do not think that it is justifiable to say that because 12 and 13-year-olds may in very rare circumstances find themselves in that position that is justification for denying that other population from having this right. 
I understand where the Minister is coming from with his comments about the amendment. I do note that there is an additional area of exceptions for the age 18 limit which is around those people who are involved in the armed forces—those on operational service or going out as seafarers. Again it is an example of the recognition that sometimes people under 18 have jobs that have significant responsibilities. They are undertaking significant responsibilities and they should then be able to have the responsibility in law of making a will. I do not think it is unreasonable to recommend that young people—16 and 17-year-olds—who have to be responsible for their families should be denied that opportunity. 
I sat in on a number of the submissions on this bill and on some of the consideration and I thought the submissions were very good. The changes the select committee has made to the legislation have been very good and we generally support the bill in its form. We think a very good job was done on it. But there is just this one area where I think the community is starting to accept more that young people have the right to be engaged in their world and legally recognised for that engagement. 
I think Parliament needs to come to terms with its role in making sure there is equity among young people so that we do support their engagement and we do support their efforts to be involved in the wider world and their understanding of the legal rights and responsibilities they have as a form of supporting and encouraging them to be included in the civic life of their community as well. If this is one small way in which we can demonstrate that as a Parliament I think it would be a very good thing and I hope at least some members will support this amendment. Thank you.
Barker Rick: Wills Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Wills Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10008] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I will consult with my officials shortly and come back with some comments on the Evidence Amendment Act (No 2) 1980 about which the member Christopher Finlayson made a very good point. 
I will respond briefly to Metiria Turei and her Supplementary Order Paper 118. I make the comment that this issue was raised by a number of submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The Ministry of Justice considered the submissions and made recommendations to the select committee that the bill stay as it is and that the submissions be rejected. That recommendation was made for a number of reasons. Firstly it is accepted that it is a rather crude measure to set an age as a proxy for maturity but that is what has been done. It is consistent throughout the legislation and it is consistent with other legislation such as the contractual capacity of minors under the Minors’ Contracts Act 1969 and the second-hand brokers legislation. It is also consistent with the law relating to minors who wish to get married to have a civil union or to get into other relationships. The consent and support of a third party is required. The same regime is being suggested in this bill for people who wish to make wills. 
I accept the member’s point that we need to consider people under the age of 18. The legislation does that. It does not prohibit people from making a will; it simply puts them on the same basis as other statutes. I know that one could argue that consistency is the last refuge of a fool but consistency does have its positive attributes from time to time and I think this is one of those occasions when some form of consistency is a positive.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10006] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Justice Reform Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10006] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Question agreed to.
Mark Ron: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:9975] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 And that is why we will be supporting the passage of this bill.
Burton Mark: Evidence Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Burton Mark: Evidence Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:9975] 
Evidence Amendment Bill 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Evidence Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee 
referred to Justice and Electoral Committee 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 22 June 2007. 
Motion agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Evidence Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Evidence Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:9967] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry Mr Tisch. You are right but I have called if the member wants to speak.
Tisch Lindsay: Evidence Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Evidence Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:9967] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Our list here shows that the fourth speaker is National and the fourth speaker is the next speaker.
Hughes Darren: Urgent Debates — Tranz Rail Shares—Insider Trading 
Hughes Darren: Urgent Debates — Tranz Rail Shares—Insider Trading 
[Volume:640;Page:9953] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 It seems to me that Mr Peters has really only just skimmed the surface of this topic and I seek leave for a further 5 minutes for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to continue to address this very important issue for the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that he cannot seek leave on behalf of another member. The member himself can seek leave. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will seek leave then. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is seeking leave for another 5 minutes of speech. Is there any objection? There is.
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Tranz Rail Shares—Insider Trading 
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Tranz Rail Shares—Insider Trading 
[Volume:640;Page:9950] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I so do given how serious this issue is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to the debate taking place? There is no objection.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Tranz Rail Shares—Insider Trading 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Tranz Rail Shares—Insider Trading 
[Volume:640;Page:9949] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. I understand the point he is making and I thank the member for the point of information. It is a matter that could be debated in the general debate tomorrow if the opportunity for examining the estimates has past. As the member well knows— 
Rodney Hide 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: —I am still on my feet Mr Hide—Speaker’s decisions of course are not relitigated by members but members are perfectly free to seek leave to have the debate.
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Tranz Rail Shares—Insider Trading 
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Tranz Rail Shares—Insider Trading 
[Volume:640;Page:9949] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 We are not on that committee. We are in front of the Law and Order Committee. This is a law and order matter; it is not a matter of commerce in that context. The Serious Fraud Office comes before the Law and Order Committee. That is why I raised it in that context. Madam Speaker given that you were once the Attorney-General you should have understood that better than most members.
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Tranz Rail Shares—Insider Trading 
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Tranz Rail Shares—Insider Trading 
[Volume:640;Page:9949] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The fact is that the time available for the estimates in respect of parliamentary and MPs’ scrutiny at the select committee has gone. Therefore we are not afforded the opportunity to raise this issue there and the Speaker was I am sad to say misadvised by one of her staff. That is point No. 1. 
Point No. 2 is that this issue concerns two men who pocketed over half a billion dollars in a series of transactions in this country and the latest one was exposed—and it includes them both because Midavia Holdings includes Michael Fay as well as David Richwhite—and no official bothered to do a darned thing about it including the current head of the Serious Fraud Office who is about to retire his predecessor and the head of the Inland Revenue Department. 
So this is not a matter that should be just glossed over. It concerns the first time that anyone in officialdom has done anything about those men who just rob this country blind in transaction after transaction after transaction. They robbed a whole lot of New Zealanders as well. Here we are now in June 2007 with a chance to have a debate and to point out that our officials were derelict in their duty as were many MPs and you say that it can wait. Do you not recall the reason that the matter was not investigated by the Serious Fraud Office? The present incumbent Bradshaw said that too much time had gone by. Too much time went by because he sat on his backside and did nothing. He was politically corrupt in his failure to act; it is a definition of corruption that one does not act because one is too scared of the consequences. 
Simon Power 
: That’s enough. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No it is not enough. I know about the National Party’s cover-up of this matter. That is why National does not want a debate—because it sought to cover it up. National even sought not to have the documents disclosed. Now Madam Speaker I am asking you to reconsider your decision given that the select committee cannot discuss this matter now as the time for the estimates examination has gone. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the member please be seated. I have understood the member’s point.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Tranz Rail Shares—Insider Trading 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Tranz Rail Shares—Insider Trading 
[Volume:640;Page:9948] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 a settlement of the insider trading case. The settlement is a particular case of recent occurrence and given that the Securities Commission is a party to the settlement it does involve the ministerial responsibility of the Government. However I am not convinced that this matter requires the House to set aside its pre-arranged business to debate it today. The matters of concern identified in the application such as the role of the Serious Fraud Office in the settlement and the imminence of KiwiSaver are matters that can be conveniently explored through other parliamentary avenues—for example the estimates and financial reviews. The application is therefore declined.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:9946] 
11.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Has she received any evaluations on the uptake of paid parental leave in New Zealand? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have received a recent evaluation of the paid parental leave scheme that the Labour-led Government introduced in 2002. It shows that it is widely embraced by New Zealanders and has been taken up by 80 percent of eligible women. With last year’s change to include the self-employed the scheme is now available to nearly 90 percent of all women in paid work. 
Dave Hereora 
: Noting the Minister’s primary answer did the evaluation identify any potential barriers to the scheme or its further extension? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes. It noted that although few fathers currently use the parental leave provisions many said they wanted to take time off work to help care for their new babies. Our Government is committed to exploring options allowing that to happen and to supporting parental choice much—I note—to the disdain of anti - paid parental leave advocate Kate Wilkinson who said that when it comes to providing this support the State should “butt out”. Even if the evaluation did not identify the National Party as a barrier to paid parental leave Kate Wilkinson’s attitude would certainly suggest otherwise. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was a direct misrepresentation. What I said— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but that is not a point of order. Please be seated. The member knows that is not a point of order. Any further questions? No. Then we go to question No. 12 Heather Roy. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take personal offence at being misrepresented by that Minister—Standing Order 116. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I said that is not a point of order. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: This is a different point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What is your point of order? 
Kate Wilkinson 
: It was a personal reflection on my credibility and I take personal offence at being so misrepresented. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member should know by now—she has been here long enough—that if she wants to make a personal statement that is in order but that was not a valid point of order. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I seek leave to table the press release quoting Kate Wilkinson saying the State should “butt out”. 
Document not tabled. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: I seek leave to table that same press release which stated I had said the State should “butt out of the home”. 
Document not tabled.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:9943] 
8.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he made any recent announcements about the general practitioner workforce? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. The Government has increased the places in the general practitioner education programme by 50 percent starting from early next year. It is also possible that there will be a further increase from 2009 but the Government first needs to weigh the need the cost and especially the capacity a bit more closely before making that decision. 
Maryan Street 
: What is the origin of this long-term workforce shortage? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In the early 1990s National cut the general practitioner education programme in half on the grounds that “the market” would provide. The market did not provide. My colleague Annette King increased the intake a little in 2002 as I did again at the beginning of this year. But from February next year we will be training the highest number of general practitioners ever trained in this country. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it the Government’s intention to proceed with a medical training board or does the Government have alternative ideas? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is the Government’s intention to proceed with a medical training board. We will probably call it a health training board but its first task will be to progress undergraduate training. I might just say parenthetically as the member raises the issue that last December my colleague the Minister of Finance increased funding to medical schools by 40 percent and increased funding to dental schools by something closer to 50 percent. We can contrast that with the “mother of all Budgets” where in the small print dental school funding was cut by 40 percent. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table official documents that show there are fewer general practitioners today than there were when this Government started. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:9938] 
4.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What has the Government done to extend a welcome to the Dalai Lama during his current visit to New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Dalai Lama is not an official visitor. He was facilitated at airports and police have made their own operational decisions about his security. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister not think it is somewhat inconsistent to take a strong stand on human rights in Fiji yet refuse to meet the Dalai Lama officially in Wellington to discuss the appalling human rights situation in Tibet and how New Zealand might help to alleviate it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: On a number of occasions I have raised with Chinese leaders the issue of the treatment of people in Tibet and I will continue to do so. 
Keith Locke 
: Is the Government so desperate to get a free-trade deal with China that it would forgo an official meeting with the Dalai Lama while he is here and sacrifice our moral right as a nation to speak out on human rights issues as we wish and to meet such internationally reputable figures? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No that question is absurd. As I told the member in an earlier answer I have regularly raised the issue of Tibet with China’s leaders. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister welcome the Dalai Lama’s support for New Zealand’s courageous antinuclear stance in the face of intense criticism from a great power; and does she not think it would be similarly courageous to stand up to pressure from another great power not to openly support the rights of the Tibetan people and to meet its leader? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I welcome any support for New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy. I can assure the member that pressure is normally counter-productive.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Dalai Lama—Visit to New Zealand 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Dalai Lama—Visit to New Zealand 
[Volume:640;Page:9933] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Amongst other things this motion is not a way that a country that wants to be in the First World should conduct its foreign policy and second this member knows full well that he is now contesting clear Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings and that he should desist from doing that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the member did follow the right process. He was seeking leave of the House. Leave was sought and it was declined.
Points of Order — Dalai Lama—Visit to New Zealand 
Points of Order — Dalai Lama—Visit to New Zealand 
[Volume:640;Page:9933] 
Points of Order 
Dalai Lama—Visit to New Zealand 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to move a motion in my name that is on the Order Paper. I did run the wording of the motion past the parties last week. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I have not mentioned what number it is yet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You have said it is in your name and that was an identification. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Could I please read it out? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No you have sought leave to move a member’s motion which you have identified as yours on the Order Paper. If leave is given you then proceed. But leave is sought first. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On all previous occasions when this has been done the member including myself on previous occasions has been allowed to move the wording of the motion. I seek to do so now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. That is not the case. A different process— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Amongst other things this motion is not a way that a country that wants to be in the First World should conduct its foreign policy and second this member knows full well that he is now contesting clear Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings and that he should desist from doing that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the member did follow the right process. He was seeking leave of the House. Leave was sought and it was declined.
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Dalai Lama—Visit to New Zealand 
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Dalai Lama—Visit to New Zealand 
[Volume:640;Page:9933] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On all previous occasions when this has been done the member including myself on previous occasions has been allowed to move the wording of the motion. I seek to do so now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. That is not the case. A different process—
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Dalai Lama—Visit to New Zealand 
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Dalai Lama—Visit to New Zealand 
[Volume:640;Page:9933] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to move a motion in my name that is on the Order Paper. I did run the wording of the motion past the parties last week. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I have not mentioned what number it is yet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You have said it is in your name and that was an identification. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Could I please read it out? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No you have sought leave to move a member’s motion which you have identified as yours on the Order Paper. If leave is given you then proceed. But leave is sought first.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:640;Page:9933] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to discussions that have occurred I seek leave for the Evidence Amendment Bill to be set down for first reading before Government order of the day No. 1 today notwithstanding Standing Order 282. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:640;Page:9933] 
Tuesday 19 June 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to discussions that have occurred I seek leave for the Evidence Amendment Bill to be set down for first reading before Government order of the day No. 1 today notwithstanding Standing Order 282. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
[Volume:639;Page:9878] 
The important thing is that what Kawiti did there with some of the fortifications actually had an impact upon the World War I fortifications. The earlier fortifications went into the establishment of those later fortifications. We have a World Heritage Site there and most New Zealanders just go up and down the highway and do not even realise it is there. It is a magical place and I would just put in a plug for people to stop there a little more often. The intention of this bill is terrific and we can understand the outcomes. The House is saying tonight that it will be scrutinising the activities of the people up in this area closely and I think that we all agree that if for example they go mad then we will put through legislation like this.
[Volume:639;Page:9878] 
I have to say one little thing to Mr Carter. Shane Jones is right: Hone Heke had his pa at Kerikeri. He had it at Te Ahuahu where he was shot after Despard got his butt kicked in at Ohaeawai. Therefore he was a bit late for Ruapekapeka. I am very very sad to see the number of cars that go up and down that highway and do not stop to see Ruapekapeka because that is a piece of living history. We can actually see not only part of our history and the courage and ingenuity of people like Kawiti and the people who were with him but also the grit of the British who brought those guns all the way up from Kawakawa to be able to drop the shells down onto the Maori.
Vote: Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based Representation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based Representation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9885] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the 
 Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based Representation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Motion not agreed to.
[Volume:639;Page:9878] 
I look at this bill and I think it proves my case because John Carter put in the bill in 1995. How slow is that? It has only just got to its second reading! So I rest my case that in fact the real problem was that John Carter was too slow to catch up to me on the paddock that day—not the other way around. New Zealand First will be supporting the call made by the member John Carter for this bill to be discharged but we also congratulate the member on the endeavours he has made in this particular case.
[Volume:639;Page:9878] 
I will just tell a story because I think that Pete Hodgson told a wonderful story before. Back in 2004 the parliamentary rugby team decided that it would go to the Cook Islands and because I had played rugby for the Cook Islands I thought that I had better go. Unbeknown to me I found out that they were to have a practice game at Miramar. I was caught up in a ruck and had my leg broken in two places. It was the worst thing that had ever happened to me. So when a reporter came to me and asked how it happened I said that it was John Carter’s fault because he was supposed to be supporting me and he was not there. So the reporter went to John Carter who said that my leg could not be broken at all. He said that it could not be broken because I was moving too slowly to break my leg.
[Volume:639;Page:9878] 
Earlier on we were talking about Waitangi and its importance and why we should have Waitangi Day. It was at Waitangi that the document was signed upon which our nation—our nation—was founded. Whenever I visit Waitangi one of the things I am left with is the fact that if our ancestors had gone the length and breadth of this country they could not have found a more majestic place to create such an important piece of our history. This whole area is important and I think it is often neglected.
[Volume:639;Page:9878] 
That whole area and not just Kerikeri is really the cradle of our nation’s history. I say that very judiciously because I am talking about our nation. Obviously things went on in New Zealand that were important long before that and I think that people need to realise that the concept of history is more than something that began only when we had written records. We in the South Pacific particularly need to resist that particular concept and reject it because history is carried in whakapapa and it is carried in moteatea and tauparapara and a whole pile of other things. So we need to expand that academic definition. But as a nation this is the area in which our history is cradled.
Donnelly Brian: Kerikeri National Trust Bill — Second Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Kerikeri National Trust Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9878] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 We in New Zealand First applaud John Carter the member for Northland and we applaud the intention behind the Kerikeri National Trust Bill. I speak here as someone who selected to be a Northlander after having grown up in Auckland.
Vote: New Zealand Day Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Day Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9872] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Day Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 2 
United Future 2. 
Noes 117 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Motion not agreed to.
Hughes Darren: New Zealand Day Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: New Zealand Day Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9868] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I noticed my colleague Shane Jones attempting to make a call from an Opposition bench which I am pretty sure is out of order and that if he were to return to the Government side he would be entitled to seek a call—would that be correct? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes.
Donnelly Brian: Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9855] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 As a former teacher who spent most of his teaching career in rural schools I am very pleased to be able to make a short contribution to the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting the bill going to the select committee. We believe it is simply a modernisation mechanism. It is really a bit of motherhood and apple pie so we do not think we should waste a lot of time in debating it here. Obviously the select committee will scrutinise its detail; that is what select committees are for. 
I point out that one of the things the bill does is give the association a new name. It brings the newly named entity under the Companies Act whilst at the same time it confirms its mutuality. In doing so it removes some of the shackles that bound the group under the 1995 Act and subsequently the 1998 Act. 
It certainly provides us with a great deal of confidence that 35000 members have been advised of the proposed changes. As Simon Power said the response to that although small was quite positive. That certainly concurs with the experience our caucus members have had because not one of those 35000 members has come banging on any of our doors to say they want this bill stopped or to ask for us to vote against it. Once again I say that New Zealand First hopes to facilitate the speedy passage of this legislation. 
Bill read a first time. referred to Primary Production Committee 
Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.
Choudhary Ashraf: Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill — First Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9855] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 As a former resident of Palmerston North now living in Auckland it is my great pleasure— 
Simon Power 
: It’s not too late. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: Yes indeed I do miss Palmerston North— 
Hon Member 
: John Cleese visited it too. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: That is right. I shall be back there this Saturday meeting my old mates. It is a great pleasure to stand up and support the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill which updates the powers authorities and requirements of the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association. It will also allow for a quality service to be provided to farmers and the rural community for general insurance risk protection and financial services. 
The bill repeals and replaces the Farmers’ Mutual Group Act 1998. It gives the association the same capacity and powers as a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1993. The group however retains its ongoing mutuality. It can operate only within the limited powers conferred on it under the Mutual Insurance Act of 1955. The powers the group has in the 1955 Act are outdated which restricts its ability to compete with others in the industry. The new Act will allow the group to operate more competitively and provide a quality service. 
The bill continues the present identity and existence after incorporation of Farmers’ Mutual. It provides for the continuation of existing legal and other proceedings on and after the date of incorporation and makes it unnecessary to amend any application notice or other documents to continue legal and other proceedings in respect of the group. The legal effect of the contracts and other instruments made by the association prior to the date of incorporation continues after incorporation. The appointments of the directors and the auditor made before incorporation are continued under the bill subject to the terms of the bill and the constitution. The bill continues the employment of all its officers. The terms and conditions of employment of each employee must remain the same as the terms and conditions of employment immediately before the date of incorporation. 
I am delighted to support this bill. In particular I welcome the people from Palmerston North from Farmers’ Mutual who are here today listening to this debate and I will be delighted to meet with some of them tomorrow to discuss this issue further. It is my great pleasure to be able to support this bill.
Power Simon: Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9854] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The National Party will be supporting the passage of the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill and will be doing so along the terms outlined by the Hon Steve Maharey. We too want to see the matter proceed with some haste. I know that those from the Farmers Mutual Group who have been listening to and watching the Parliament for the last hour or so will be reassured that from time to time the Parliament does agree on certain pieces of legislation and important matters; this bill is one of those. 
There is no doubt that the Farmers Mutual Group has a very strong place in the lives of the farming community in New Zealand. It has a very major presence at different field days around New Zealand and as the Hon Steve Maharey rightly pointed out the Farmers Mutual Group has been providing insurance to the farming community of New Zealand for more than 100 years. During that time the focus has been on providing farmers with products that are relevant to the New Zealand culture. 
I am advised that the Farmers Mutual Group grew from modest beginnings. During the late 19th century when farmers became more prosperous—those were the days—and began to look for fire insurance to protect their properties they were astonished at the prices offered by established overseas-owned insurance companies. In the best traditions of the New Zealand agricultural community they did not sit around and whine about it but rather took matters into their own hands and formed the mutual group that we are now dealing with today as part of this bill. 
I know that members of the House are keen to see this bill progress with some haste. I am delighted that the Minister has had an opportunity to speak with David Carter. The bill itself is not overly complex but one of the things that I was keen to be reassured of was the fact that farming members of the mutual group had been given the opportunity to express their views on the matter and the Minister rightly points out that somewhere in the vicinity of 35000-odd letters were sent out. Farmers must have been happy with the proposals because as I understand it very few responded to that initiative and those who responded did so in a very positive way. 
It is probably timely for the Companies Act to become the applicable legislation for the way this organisation runs and for a more corporate governance and legislative model to take hold. I assure those members who have an interest in this bill that the National Party will do its part to make sure this legislation has a speedy process through this House and I re-emphasise National’s support for the bill.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Corrections Department—Ombudsmen’s Report 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Corrections Department—Ombudsmen’s Report 
[Volume:639;Page:9821] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from Simon Power and Nandor Tanczos seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the report of the Ombudsmen entitled  
Investigation by John Belgrave Chief Ombudsman and Mel Smith Ombudsman of the Department of Corrections in Relation to the Transport of Prisoners 
. The release of the report is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and it does require the immediate attention of the House. I therefore accept the application. As Simon Power lodged his application first I call on Mr Power to move that the House take note of the matter.
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:639;Page:9821] 
1.  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill: 
 Is she intending to postpone the second reading of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill; if so why? 
LYNNE PILLAY (Member in charge of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill) 
: 
 As the member should be aware the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill has only just been reported back to the House. The bill is a local bill and I will be consulting with the respective councils Waitakere City Rodney City and the Auckland Regional Council in my capacity as the MP for Waitakere and the sponsor of the bill. 
Paula Bennett 
: Is the member purposely delaying the second reading of the bill—as the Business Committee reported yesterday that the bill would be read for a second time today—because she no longer has the numbers in the House for it to pass? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There has to be some relationship to the truth and the Business Committee yesterday was clearly informed the bill was still below the line today. So it cannot come up for debate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes that was a point of information. Did the member want anything more— 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: No Madam Speaker. The Minister has answered appropriately for me. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was a clarification which is often given in this House when there is a misunderstanding as to the nature of the House’s affairs and it was to the assistance of members.
Hereora Dave:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hereora Dave:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:639;Page:9817] 
10.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Has he received any reports on recent developments in New Zealand’s 3-D digital industry? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Acting Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Yes I have received a report on Nextspace the research and innovation centre linked to Right Hemisphere. Nextspace will receive $7 million in funding over the next 3 years for a series of initiatives aimed at bolstering a range of Kiwi 3-D digital content and graphics firms and research institutions. Nextspace will leverage the Government’s agreement with Right Hemisphere by building an online graphics technology cluster for New Zealand. 
Dave Hereora 
: Has he seen any reports on this Government supporting the development of a 3-D digital industry in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes. I saw one in the  
New Zealand Herald  
that stated: “Officials and Ministers should not be searching the country for such opportunities.” The report was from Katherine Rich—who incidentally recently sided with Mr Key against Mr English on broadband. Unlike the National Party this Government actively and unapologetically pursues well-targeted opportunities for New Zealand business. 3-D technology is a multibillion-dollar industry where New Zealand already has an edge. The Government is committed to building on that edge. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Since the Minister has raised the issue of two members of the same party having a different view particularly when they come from the front bench and I know that he has not been in Parliament very long but can he recall any time in the history of parliamentary parties since for example the days of John Marshall and Rob Muldoon where two leading members of a party constantly and publicly dispute what the other one has said? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As interesting a question as that is it is outside the scope of the original question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister put the matter at issue when he said that two members had sided in one party against their deputy leader. With that being the case where he has put it at issue I am trying to think of any time since John Marshall and Rob Muldoon for example way back in the 1970s when that has ever happened. I think it is pretty apposite that the country needs to know. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I also draw the member’s attention to the fact that there is no ministerial responsibility for that.