edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Fenton Darien: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Fenton Darien: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1610] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 This bill is not about preventing contracting-out or undermining competitive tendering. It is about ensuring that workers have the right to transfer while at the same time the new employer has the right to make business decisions in relation to the workforce once the transfer is complete. So let us not get into overstating or hyping up what is a simple protection that takes New Zealand workers only one small long-overdue step towards the kinds of protections workers overseas have had for many years. 
 I emphasise again that this bill is about fixing a problem that occurred because of the Crest Commercial Cleaning decision. It is about ensuring that the original intent of the Government and this Parliament is met. If we do nothing the only workers in New Zealand who are left without any kind of protection will be those workers whom the original Act specifically sought to protect—that is cleaners food service workers caretakers laundry workers and so on who have already been contracted out. 
The bill does not encourage poor performance and acceptance of incompetence as some have claimed. Those are management issues that can be dealt with at any stage of a restructuring process either before or after. The bill does not give jobs for life. It provides protections for workers only at the point of transfer. After that the employer is free to carry out normal business operations subject of course to existing employment law. 
Let us be honest even before the enactment of the Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 many employers had carried out the requirements of the law in relation to transfer and even with the Crest Commercial Cleaning decision those employers had made a decision to continue to apply the requirements as intended by Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act. Has the world fallen apart? It does not look like it. 
Cleaning catering orderly and laundry workers have waited a long time for this protection in legislation. Unfortunately they have had to wait a little bit longer because of the Crest Commercial Cleaning decision. This is a complex area of law and I know that Opposition members do not understand it but the workers who are affected by it do. They have had to live and breathe the unfairness of this situation for years and years. I look forward to sharing experiences at the select committee as to how this legislation can work positively for both business and employers and to the protections that were originally envisaged by this Government being enacted speedily.
Vote: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Vote: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1610] 
A party vote was called for on the question That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2006. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1589] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought you might have interrupted the member. He was making a speech. That was not a point of order. Dr Brash asked specifically for a document to be tabled that supported the position he took. It is either in order or out of order. For the member to then stand up and take a couple of minutes to make a speech and to quote from a document is completely out of order and he should have been pulled up for it at the time. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem for the senior whip opposite was the so-called point of order from Dr Brash. Clearly Dr Brash was aware that Mr Cosgrove had referred to the  
Dominion Post 
 article. He was clearly aware that it was not an official document and therefore his point of order was not one. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to members that it is one all and I would like to move on.
Cosgrove Clayton: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Cosgrove Clayton: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1589] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am quite happy to assist the House. Perhaps Dr Brash misunderstood the point I was going to make. I am quite happy to table Mr Waters’ quote from the  
Dominion Post 
 of 16 February 2006 which states: “I fear the risk for this country is if enough people keep saying there is going to be a recession it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy” and I point out that that is exactly what Dr Brash has been doing for years. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not an official document.
Brash Don: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Brash Don: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1589] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite Mr Cosgrove to table any evidence he has at all suggesting that Ralph Waters criticised me in his speech in early February. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is up to the member whether he tables anything. It is only official documents— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Read the Standing Orders Don. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will sit down please. Points of order are heard in silence and there is a reason for that.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1581] 
11.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What recent initiatives will enhance education and science research in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Today I have some outstandingly good news. The Government has committed $43 million over the next 5 years to build the Advanced Network which is a high-speed advanced communications network. It will link our universities with our Crown research institutes and link them both to a worldwide network that will significantly enhance their ability to do research in this country. I should note that the $43 million put forward by the Government will be matched by the universities and the Crown research institutes themselves. It is a fantastic development. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other investments is the Government making to accelerate New Zealand’s economic growth through science? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There is so much good news that I will restrict myself to the following: the Government is investing around $175 million a year or 15 percent of the total research and development budget to support biotechnology research. A report I released this week reinforces the value of that investment because it tells us that just four biotechnologies alone returned $400 million to New Zealand last year. That has to be put against the fact that 62 percent of all biotechnology is still in a developmental stage. We are clearly watching a rising part of our economy from which we will get huge returns. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Why has it taken so long to regain the focus of agricultural science given that it is now many years ago that Simon Upton initiated the disastrous changes that led to a 40 percent drop in agricultural science according to Fonterra? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Ever since the Labour Government has been in office of course that focus has been reversed and we are now on the right track.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1580] 
10.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement that he envisages some very bold measures emerging from the business tax review currently under way? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: Is the Minister’s business tax review considering a cut to the corporate tax rate together with the introduction of a payroll tax; if so what does he consider will be the benefits of that scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A whole range of options are being looked at. Unlike many members opposite Mr Dunne and I are not afraid to think. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister recall that at his request in 2004 Treasury calculated that to cut the company tax rate to 20 percent with no loss of revenue to the Crown would require the introduction of a payroll tax of 5.4 percent; if so does he find such a concept appealing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can recollect those numbers. They would be subject obviously to a great deal of recalculation. In both cases they would be significantly lower than the corresponding Australian rates. 
John Key 
: Is an objective of the Minister’s business tax review that proposals be revenue-neutral; if not how large does he envisage the impact will be on the Crown accounts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Those matters will be settled as part of the review. 
John Key 
: Did the Minister’s statement to the Finance and Expenditure Committee a few weeks ago that some of the options being considered by the review may prove to be “too big and too bold for a wide variety of stakeholders including officials” indicate that the payroll tax scheme he is working on is his own idea and that others will have trouble accepting it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It indicated that sometimes one can dream and that other people do not like dreams. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister also recall seeing a statement that said: “we are not persuaded that reducing this tax”—that is company tax—“… would have any materially beneficial effect on growth”; and is he surprised to know that that came from the National Party’s 2004 economic policy position paper? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I remember the quote as if it were yesterday. It came directly from Dr Donald Brash.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1572] 
5.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What recent reports if any has she received on the minimum wage? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have received a report on a survey of Wellington businesses which shows that nearly 70 percent of those businesses support the raising of the minimum wage. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports concerning the minimum wage? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes as a matter of fact I have. I have seen reports in which the need for a minimum wage at all is dismissed. That indicates how out of touch with New Zealanders and the business sector Dr Brash has become because his views are quoted in the reports. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports that are opposed to the idea of the minimum wage? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have seen another report that suggests we abandon not only the minimum wage but also minimum holiday entitlements parental leave and the moves to close the gender pay and employment gap. Again those are wishes expressed by Dr Brash. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister consider the survey results that came out the other day from Wellington businesses to be a more accurate reflection of the views of business around this country about the need for a higher minimum wage than some of the other reports the member has referred to? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I assume that the survey results accurately reflect the opinions of those who were surveyed in the Wellington business area. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those favourable answers certainly to the principal question and to the Green member’s question will the Minister recommend to the Prime Minister that the words “if economic conditions permit” be deleted from the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and the Labour Government so that we can guarantee that there will be a $12 minimum wage by the year 2008? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I think that that would be a total breach of the good faith in which those negotiations were conducted.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1567] 
1. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 on behalf of the  
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports on the aspirations of New Zealanders that the KiwiSaver scheme will address? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I received a report of a very wide survey showing that homeownership remains the No. 1 dream for most New Zealanders. The KiwiSaver scheme is one of the practicable affordable ways in which this Government is helping New Zealanders to realise that aspiration. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Did the report reveal a preference for tax cuts over continued investment in strong public services? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No the report of a survey commissioned by Telecom revealed that the following were the top dreams of New Zealanders: to remain safe and secure for our families to have the best health system in the world to own our own home to continue to stand up for ourselves and to have the best education system in the world—nearly all of which require Government expenditure. So while some might promote the idea of slashing public services to fund unsustainable tax cuts this Government stands up for the dreams of the great majority. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What other Government policies support the aspirations recorded in that report? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The report also reveals that New Zealanders are most proud of their beaches and empty spaces of being nuclear-free and of the way in which we are often the first to accomplish important things in the world. We are committed to supporting those aspirations unlike some who on occasions seem to see nuclear-free New Zealand as a potential bargaining chip.
Hodgson Pete: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 28 February 
Hodgson Pete: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 28 February 
[Volume:629;Page:1567] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yesterday in answer to a supplementary question on question No. 10 I advised the House that the National spokesperson on health had not responded to my letter of 14 February on pandemic preparedness. That is not the case and I apologise. In fact the National spokesperson on health did respond last week although I first saw his letter this morning.
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 28 February 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 28 February 
[Volume:629;Page:1567] 
Wednesday 1 March 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 10 to Minister 28 February 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yesterday in answer to a supplementary question on question No. 10 I advised the House that the National spokesperson on health had not responded to my letter of 14 February on pandemic preparedness. That is not the case and I apologise. In fact the National spokesperson on health did respond last week although I first saw his letter this morning.
Vote: KiwiSaver Bill — First Reading 
Vote: KiwiSaver Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1696] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the KiwiSaver Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Hughes Darren: KiwiSaver Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: KiwiSaver Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1695] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take the final call in the debate and to join my Labour colleagues Mr Jones Lianne Dalziel and others in welcoming another bill that delivers on the Government’s pre-election commitments. I believe that the KiwiSaver Bill is one of the most important bills that this Parliament will consider during this 3-year term because it is focused very much on the future. This is a bill whose benefit will be seen long after most members of this House have given way to their successors and I welcome it because it is the third leg in the treble almost. 
The Government has set up the New Zealand Superannuation Fund so that we can prepare our own finances in terms of funding New Zealand superannuation as a universal taxpayer entitlement. The Government has as an employer set up the public sector retirement savings scheme to show what an employer can do. Now we are setting up a facility for ordinary New Zealanders particularly working people to have access to some form of retirement savings—a modest amount of their weekly income 4 percent with some Government assistance. This is to try to tackle what we all acknowledge are two problems: first an ageing population and second the issue of getting New Zealanders’ savings levels up and our debt levels down. The Government has certainly tried to do that in the Crown accounts and this is a signal to try to get other New Zealanders to be able to save from their incomes. 
The Government being a Labour Government recognises that wages in New Zealand are not high enough which is why we have taken numerous measures—changes to the minimum wage changes to the Working for Families package and other industrial law changes—to try to get New Zealanders’ incomes up. So it is a little rich to hear parties of the right complain that New Zealanders do not earn enough when they come into Parliament and consistently vote against all those measures. 
We take the points that parties have made we agree with those points and we are trying to deal with them through our other policies. But we have to try to find a way of getting New Zealanders to save more. The KiwiSaver scheme is the only thing on offer—and it comes from the Labour Party—that we know most ordinary New Zealanders can get access to. This bill is a very very important bill. I welcome it. It is forward-looking and future-driven and it is no surprise to me that it comes from the New Zealand Labour Party.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1670] 
11.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Has she received any recent reports assessing ACC’s performance internationally? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes as a matter of fact I have. A joint Australian - New Zealand report on workers compensation comparisons shows that although 8 years ago the Accident Compensation Corporation’s levies and Australian levies were similar New Zealand rates have been steadily decreasing and are now on average just over one-third of Australia’s rates. This gives New Zealand a clear competitive advantage in most industries.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1667] 
8.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What feedback has he received from the outcome of New Zealand’s negotiations with Viet Nam over its accession to the World Trade Organization? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 I have received very positive feedback in particular from our major exporters such as the dairy meat wool and seafood industries. Fonterra’s estimate for example is that New Zealand’s dairy producers will be better off by around $12 million as a result of the negotiations. Although it is never possible to get all that one wants from negotiations New Zealand clearly achieved significantly improved market access for both goods and services. I congratulate Jim Sutton and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade team on that result. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House what the significance of achieving those outcomes is? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The outcome was significant because our trading relationship with Viet Nam is of growing importance. Our current goods exports for example are $140 million and rising and Viet Nam is the second-fastest-growing economy in South-east Asia. That means that our service exports also have real potential there. These talks were in fact a one-off opportunity for New Zealand and ended with a deal after hard negotiations that was regarded as fair and acceptable by both sides. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House what areas apart from dairying will benefit from the outcome of the negotiations? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: A reduction in final tariff rates was achieved for beef sheepmeat fish and seafood fruit and vegetables paper and other manufactured products. Services in the areas of education agriculture and the environment will also be significant beneficiaries from that agreement.
Hide Rodney: Tabling of Documents — TV3 Transcript—Hon David Benson-Pope Report—Rt Hon Winston Peters and Accusations Against Iraqis 
Hide Rodney: Tabling of Documents — TV3 Transcript—Hon David Benson-Pope Report—Rt Hon Winston Peters and Accusations Against Iraqis 
[Volume:629;Page:1653] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a report of Mr Peters failing to front up to two Iraqis whom he falsely accused in the House of working for Saddam Hussein. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is objection.
Tabling of Documents — TV3 Transcript—Hon David Benson-Pope Report—Rt Hon Winston Peters and Accusations Against Iraqis 
Tabling of Documents — TV3 Transcript—Hon David Benson-Pope Report—Rt Hon Winston Peters and Accusations Against Iraqis 
[Volume:629;Page:1653] 
Tabling of Documents 
TV3 Transcript—Hon David Benson-Pope 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 In response to Mr Peters’ claims yesterday I seek the leave of the House to table a TV3 transcript from last night in which a Miss Geana Earl documents how Mr Benson-Pope slapped her across the thigh in support of my question yesterday. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is objection. The document will not be tabled. 
Report—Rt Hon Winston Peters and Accusations Against Iraqis 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a report of Mr Peters failing to front up to two Iraqis whom he falsely accused in the House of working for Saddam Hussein. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hide Rodney: Tabling of Documents — TV3 Transcript—Hon David Benson-Pope Report—Rt Hon Winston Peters and Accusations Against Iraqis 
Hide Rodney: Tabling of Documents — TV3 Transcript—Hon David Benson-Pope Report—Rt Hon Winston Peters and Accusations Against Iraqis 
[Volume:629;Page:1653] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 In response to Mr Peters’ claims yesterday I seek the leave of the House to table a TV3 transcript from last night in which a Miss Geana Earl documents how Mr Benson-Pope slapped her across the thigh in support of my question yesterday. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is objection. The document will not be tabled.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1653] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Not at this stage but I am certainly open to discussions with other parties particularly if there is the possibility of arriving at broad consensus within the select committee around changes to the bill.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1653] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Is it the intention of the Leader of the House to seek urgency in the first week back to pass the Land Transport Amendment Bill?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1653] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House is in a 1-week adjournment. In the week starting Tuesday 14 March priority will probably be given to the second readings of the Education Amendment Bill the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) the Criminal Procedure Bill the Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Land Transport Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1653] 
Thursday 2 March 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House is in a 1-week adjournment. In the week starting Tuesday 14 March priority will probably be given to the second readings of the Education Amendment Bill the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) the Criminal Procedure Bill the Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Land Transport Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Is it the intention of the Leader of the House to seek urgency in the first week back to pass the Land Transport Amendment Bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Not at this stage but I am certainly open to discussions with other parties particularly if there is the possibility of arriving at broad consensus within the select committee around changes to the bill.
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1962] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 46. 
Bill read a third time.
Fenton Darien: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Fenton Darien: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1962] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in the third reading of this bill. I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which considered the issue. It is a tough issue and it is an emotional issue. I understand the feelings that have been expressed from members on all sides of the House about this matter. But the thing that struck me was how we should deal with the people who many years ago in their youth committed a crime that was a relatively minor crime at the time and would be considered to be a minor crime today. For example the one that stood out for me was somebody who in 1964 received a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more and who would have been under the National Party proposals excluded from applying or reapplying for a P endorsement. That seemed to be incredibly unfair. Who of us can say that if we had done something in our past and have lived long enough for it to have been done as many years ago as that we should not be able to be reconsidered if we have done nothing else since then? 
We support this bill. I am pleased that it has got through to this stage. It corrects an injustice and I commend the House for its progress.
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1947] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 46. 
Clause 4 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1947] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 46. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We had one further amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to add words to section 29B(1)(b)(ii) in clause 4. However it has been ruled out of order on the basis that it is the same as the previous amendment.
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1947] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 13 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to section 29B(1)(b)(ii) in clause 4 be agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1947] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to omit and substitute words in section 29B(1)(b)(ii) in clause 4 be agreed to.
Bennett David: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett David: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1945] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take just a short call. We have heard a lot of talk from the Minister for Transport Safety about justice. If he is talking about justice what about the justice that was the intent of the 2005 legislation? Parliament passed an Act in 2005 on the basis of providing justice for people undertaking a career as a driver and also providing justice for those who would be passengers in their vehicles. To come here and talk about justice in terms of what is being doing now is quite a different concept. The real justice is in providing an avenue for passengers and drivers to be protected as in the 2005 legislation. 
The reality of what is being done today is that it is a numbers game. If those cases had not come up in December to January you would not be doing what you are doing now. That legislation would have been there and it would have been fine. It is a numbers game. You have had some cases come before you and public opinion is dead against them so you have to do something about them. National members are not saying there is any problem with that; we are saying you should be honest. You have a problem so let us deal with it but keep the justice that you set up in 2005. That is the reality of what we are dealing with and that is where the consistency argument comes in. It is not a matter of consistency between new and existing drivers; it is a matter of consistency of policy between what you put forward in 2005 and what you are putting forward now. You have changed your policy because of public opinion concerning a few cases over the Christmas holidays. The best way of doing that— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I realise you have been engrossed in other matters but the honourable member is saying “you did this” and “you did that”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. I tell the honourable member David Bennett that when he uses the word “you” he is referring to the Chair. It is convention that that does not happen. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Consistency needs to be looked at in relation to the intent of the 2005 Act—not consistency between existing and new drivers. People talk about the justice system as the means of recoil but the justice system is quite different from the legislative process. We pass legislation; the justice system interprets that legislation. In this case the justice system does not have the ability to interpret. There is strict legislation there and we need to put new legislation in place that achieves that.
Locke Keith: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1943] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think the Minister for Transport Safety summed it up quite clearly in his introduction to this clause by saying it is all about justice. I think that is the essence of it and that is where I disagree with Tau Henare’s approach. He asked why we needed to worry about these 160 people—I do not know whether I have the number exactly right—and said that we should worry about young women etc. If we approach matters from a question of justice we worry about everyone and want everyone to have a fair go. This is not about 160 drivers versus women or girls as Mr Henare put it but is a question of our getting it right for everyone. 
We have to trust the Director of Land Transport in this matter. Chester Borrows asked how we know that the director has enough information. It is the same in any proceeding—in this proceeding or in a court or wherever. We have to trust the judge and the jury to work out whether they have enough information to reach their decision. If the director looks into the history of a person if not a lot of information comes forward and if no one is willing to put up his or her hand in favour of the person who wants an exception made so that he or she can get a P licence than that person does not get the licence. So I do not think there is a problem. 
Chester Borrows says that some people would have committed things over the years but they were not discovered the police did not catch them and they were not brought before the court and convicted. I do not think we can operate through life thinking that people might be bad but we have just not discovered it. We have to have a bit more confidence in human beings to do good and improve themselves. If a person is the subject of—and the director would place a lot of weight on this—a whole lot of good reports from all sorts of members of the community then that person might get a good result. The director can work out what sort of person he or she is. 
I was appreciative of Gordon Copeland’s speech in that he considered what the measure would mean to the people concerned. He said that people aged up to or around 60 might not have any other job to go to and that it could be quite critical for their future for them to keep their present job in the bus or taxi industry. I hope he supports Jim Anderton’s amendment to this clause in that respect. It applies to people whatever offence they committed. It might be difficult for people to get another job at the age Mr Copeland referred to and the director under Jim Anderton’s amendment would look closely at each person whose offence came under that range of offences. I think that is the way to go.
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1939] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That new clause 3A be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 46. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
New clause 3A not agreed to.
Bennett David: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett David: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1936] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Clause 3A on Supplementary Order Paper 17 in my name reflects the insertion of a new clause for new persons. For the purposes of the clause a new person is defined under subclause (2) as “a person applying for a passenger endorsement after the commencement of the Land Transport Amendment Act 2006.” In essence a new person is someone who comes in after the legislation has been passed. So we are looking at someone who may apply in say a month’s time to come into the industry as the driver of either a taxi or a bus. That person would be a new person because he or she had come in after the legislation had been enacted. 
The reason we broke it into new and existing people was to reflect the intention of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and also the original intention of the amendment Act in 2005. The break between new and existing people was seen as the easiest way to do that. There may be other ways to make that distinction but the distinction between a new person who comes in and an existing driver is something that fulfils the requirements of the amendment Act in 2005. If we go back to the history of that amendment we find it was supposed to be just for new persons who come into the industry. At the select committee stage it was extended to include existing persons already in the industry. As a result of that we are now in the situation we have arrived at today with a number of cases that arose over the Christmas break attracting a lot of public opinion. Those cases are now being dealt with by this amendment bill. If we had kept the provision to new persons in the legislation in 2005 we would not have the problem that we do now. 
The break between new and existing persons reflects the need to maintain a balance and also to maintain the spirit of the 2005 amendment for the new people who come into the industry. We need that for new people because we need the security that every time we hop into a taxi or a bus we can trust the driver. The new distinction is a higher threshold than that for existing drivers. It builds the trust in the industry that enables drivers to go out there and feel comfortable in the jobs that they undertake and it enables passengers to feel comfortable about getting the driver of a taxi to take them to a venue. 
We believe that a distinction between new and existing drivers is appropriate and reflects the true intention of the legislation that was enacted last year. It also provides an opportunity for the balance and flexibility needed to look after people who have been caught in the earlier period of this year by the legislation from 2005.
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1936] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 46. 
Clause 3 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1935] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1935] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to add words to section 29A(3)(b) in clause 3 be agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1935] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to omit and substitute words in section 29(A)(3)(b) in clause 3 be agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1935] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 46. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Duynhoven Harry: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1924] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 First I would like to thank the members who have contributed to the debate so far. I take a brief call to talk about where the bill goes from here. 
As members will be aware there are some Supplementary Order Papers. There is a Supplementary Order Paper from the Hon Jim Anderton and another one from a National member that apply to clause 3. It is important that members in looking at the bill as it has returned from the select committee read the struck-out clauses to learn what the original bill set out to do. I hope that members as they consider the bill look at what was proposed—remembering that the bill was to try to remedy the situation of the very people whom Dr Mapp talked about. 
Also I point out that I was a little surprised to hear a few speakers from the National Opposition talking about their wish not to allow anyone who was imprisoned to come back into the industry in the future. I am a little surprised at that given that some of the National MPs who contacted me in the Christmas holiday period actually contacted me to ask me to do anything possible to help their constituents who in one or two cases had in fact been imprisoned. So although they are saying to those constituents that they will do everything they can to help them it appears to me—and I hope they will reconsider their position on this—that even in cases of minor sentences of a month or 3 months they are now prepared to vote against the very people they have asked me to work to help. Over the Christmas holiday period I talked to each and every party—to National members Labour members and members of other parties. Indeed I rang some myself after receiving messages from them. I hope the National members will reconsider their position because if they go down the path they have proposed here this evening on the one hand they are saying to those people that they will be in touch with the Minister and will do what they can to help them and on the other hand they are voting against doing something for the very people whom they have asked the Minister to help. There is a double standard there that I sincerely hope does not get carried through. I beg the National MPs to think about their position on those issues. 
I look forward to the debate and hope we can have a constructive debate along the lines of the original bill. Sure the select committee has come back with other ideas but we should look carefully at what the bill was designed to do and ensure that people actually do get some justice from this.
Mapp Wayne: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1921] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I thank you Mr Chairperson for your guidance to members on the way we should conduct our debate. I am sure members will fairly strictly observe your injunctions. 
The title is accurately described—it is a Land Transport Act that is being amended. In that discussion one has to consider why the Act was originally amended; otherwise why would this bill have the title “Land Transport Amendment Bill”? It was amended due to circumstances about which I will not go into detail because they have been canvassed in the previous debate. We are now having to deal with the consequential effect of the original amendment with this amendment bill. 
It is important that I put on record that National will vote for this clause. For the benefit of the Minister for Land Transport Safety I want to say why we will vote for this clause. We recognise that it is necessary to have an amendment provision. Therefore we have to vote for a clause that reflects that the bill is an amendment; otherwise why would we vote for this clause? We are voting for it because there is an injustice most notably related to persons who already held taxi or bus driver licences and who were not intended to be caught by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s legislation from last year. I think even Mr Brown would concede that that was the general view of the select committee last year. We are now having to make an amendment to fix that up. I also note the comments made by the chair of the committee who said that this situation was not entirely the fault of the committee. I guess that is true but the House does rely on the guidance of select committee members and the truth is that they along with the officials did not take quite enough care. 
I think it is perfectly reasonable that the debate be focused on the amendment and the reasons for this particular title. I do not think it is necessary to be vexatious or litigious in the way we conduct this debate. I conclude by saying that National will support this particular clause because we recognise the necessity to pass legislation to deal with the circumstances of the 230 bus and taxi drivers affected by the previous amendment who ought to have a right to apply for reconsideration.
Tisch Lindsay: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1921] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand there will be five debates not four because of a member’s Supplementary Order Paper 17. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You are right Mr Tisch. I understand that one member is putting forward a new clause. It will be provided for and debated separately. There will be five questions and five debates.
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1920] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: At the outset I wish to advise and remind members that this bill is not drafted in parts unlike other legislation; therefore each clause will be debated separately in sequence. Members may have become used to having the latitude to sum up that is allowed in debate on primary clauses when they follow consideration of the parts of a bill. This latitude does not apply to the debates on clause 1 and clause 2 of this bill. These debates should be strictly relevant to the elements of the clauses—the bill’s title and its commencement date. Whether the title set out in clause 1 properly describes the bill is the issue under consideration in the debate on clause 1. When addressing that issue members should speak purely to whether clause 1 describes the bill. The debates on clauses 1 and 2 are not an opportunity to debate the substantive provisions of the bill. That will come in the debates on clauses 3 and 4. The reason for that is there are four questions—four clauses. I just wished to advise members of that.