edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8054] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Right I will rule on it. That is not the question. The question is that Standing Order 156 can arise only when a party vote is held. There is no party vote being held at this moment to my knowledge. Also there is no rule as to general attendance in this House so it is not relevant at this time as to how many are here or not here. 
On the point that Ron Mark raised I have not been notified of Mr Connell’s change of membership and therefore he is still a member of the National Party as far as I am concerned.
Tolley Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tolley Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8054] 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I am perfectly happy to reassure the House that the National Party is complying with Standing Order 156 and that I hold the proxies. We have less than one-quarter of our members absent from the precincts of Parliament.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8054] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Madam Speaker as the Hon Bill English has asked you to reflect upon the situation that he has quite clearly outlined could you for the benefit of the rest of us at this end of the House—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Who intervened? 
Rodney Hide 
: It was the first time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes and I believe in fairies! This is a serious point and I think all members should be here to hear it so I ask members to please restrain themselves. It is an important matter. It is a fundamental matter to trust relationships in this House. 
RON MARK 
: Madam Speaker could you please advise the House as to what the situation currently is with Mr Brian Connell. Mr Connell is a member of this House. Mr Connell has been expelled from the National Party caucus. Mr Connell’s vote is still being cast—or is it not? Under what authority and what jurisdiction is that vote being cast? What proof and evidence does the House have to see that Mr Connell actually is—or is not—a member of Parliament or a member of the National caucus and is being accorded the due rights and privileges given to him his having been elected as the member of Parliament for Rakaia? We from this end of the House would hate to see Mr English advocate one position against one party whilst he displays a completely contrary view within his own team of which he is the deputy leader.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8054] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Of course the point you made in your previous ruling Madam Speaker was that the 25 percent issue applies when a vote is taken not at any other time in the House. Secondly I note that 14 members of the National Party are away at this precise moment. National is entitled to only 12 proxies. [ 
Interruption 
] I invite the member to count her membership around the House; she is missing 14 at the present time. Thirdly this matter has been dealt with in many previous rulings. It is for the whips to deal with the issue of the absence of members and proxies. If members wish to get into that area then we will start raising questions about where Mr Key is and where other members of the National Party are. Mr Key has asked only about seven questions in the House since he became the Leader of the Opposition.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8053] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will recall that a few weeks ago there was quite an extensive discussion in this House about how the House could verify whether Taito Phillip Field’s proxy vote was being exercised in line with his intentions. What came out of that discussion was that it is quite difficult for the rest of Parliament to ascertain whether the voting rules are being kept. In this case throughout question time 19 Labour members have been absent. The House generally accepts that because we are familiar with the traditional practice of parliamentarians that if they are in the building they are present at question time and if they are not present at question time it is highly likely they are out of the building. We have drawn the reasonable assumption that for voting purposes Labour has 19 members away when it should have only 12 members away. I think it is fair for parliamentarians to infer from what is the normal behaviour whether Labour is complying with the Standing Order. Madam Speaker we would appreciate your assistance on what assurance we can have that given that 19 Labour members are absent from question time Labour is complying with the Standing Order that limits it to 12 absences.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8053] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a party vote issue. I suggest the member read the Standing Orders clearly.
Tolley Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tolley Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8053] 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could we be assured that the Government is abiding by Standing Order 156 which requires that leave can be granted for only 25 percent of a caucus?
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8053] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. To comment on that is not appropriate. It will create disorder if we raise issues about who is in the House and who is not. There is a longstanding convention that that is not done. [ 
Interruption 
] There we go!
Tolley Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tolley Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8053] 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I notice that the Government benches are looking particularly empty at this point in time and I ask you—
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8051] 
8.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: What has the Government’s New Zealand Disability Strategy achieved since its release 6 years ago? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 As the House will well know the list is long. But today I am very pleased to announce that my colleague Steve Maharey and I have launched the New Zealand Sign Language curriculum for New Zealand schools. Introducing sign language into the school curriculum to support its being made an official language is another world first for New Zealand and one we should all be very proud of. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister therefore tell the House what she expects the sign language curriculum to achieve? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The curriculum is another huge step forward in the recognition of sign language as an official language of our country and will contribute to this Government’s effort towards a more inclusive society. The curriculum will promote sign language as a choice alongside other languages offered in schools while creating greater access to sign language for both deaf and hearing students as well as increasing the pool of learners and users of this unique language. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why has the Minister used such blatant bullying tactics on the disability sector to get her way to the extent that the chief executive officer of IHC New Zealand said it had become too politically correct in some areas and that the $140 million comes with a cost and as a result 2000 disabled people lost their choice of job as IHC New Zealand closed all the sheltered workshops? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I remain very proud of my advocacy on behalf of disabled people in New Zealand. Nobody has been denied anything other than improved opportunities in vocational services under our Government’s leadership. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a letter from Ralph Jones Chief Executive Officer of IHC New Zealand. He writes: “Yes the IHC has become too politically correct in some areas.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second is from an article in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 dated 10 February which states: “Today 2000 disabled people most of them from IHC … have lost their jobs.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8049] 
6.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on the results of the 2006 NCEA examinations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has released the 2006 National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA)# national statistics which demonstrate that student achievement has continued to improve. The results show that more students are getting NCEA qualifications at all levels and that proportionally more students in 2006 passed the NCEA levels 1 to 3 than in previous years continuing the trend of the past 4 years. Achievement of the literacy requirements for NCEA level 1 in year 11 went up to 75 percent and numeracy achievement rose 6 percentage points to 82 percent. I would like to say therefore that I congratulate all the students and teachers in schools who have managed to carry on lifting that performance. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Can he tell this House what those results tell us about how the NCEA system is working? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: These latest statistics highlight the success of the NCEA system. As Dr John Langley has stated: “we are being more accurate with what we measure and how we do it.” He said that in today’s newspaper. The NCEA provides students with an opportunity to perform to their potential. That means that the brightest can stretch themselves and the others can achieve their potential across a much wider range of subjects and create a record of learning that they can use for future learning or for an employer. Therefore it is a mystery as to why the National Party would want to continue to attack the system and threaten to replace it with a return to the old pass/fail way of doing things. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is the Minister concerned about the gap between male and female achievement that the latest results show; if he is concerned about that can he advise the House when the initiatives to address achievement gaps that he referred to in a written answer to my colleague Judy Turner last July will start to produce a more even balance between male and female achievement? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes of course I am concerned about the performance of boys against girls. I still have a reference group working on this particular area but it has identified at this time that the major cause seems to be the drop-off in reading particularly as boys move into adolescence. Given that we are now enjoying increasing success in the reading programmes that we have in place in schools I would hope that those successes will start to feed through into NCEA results from now on.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8045] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 Yesterday in the House the Minister of Health disputed that cancer patients in Auckland were waiting 14 to 16 weeks for their radiation treatment. He claimed it was 8 to 10 weeks. I seek leave to table a letter dated Tuesday to an Auckland woman Susan with a medical consultant Dr Benjamin advising that she must wait 14 to 16 weeks for her radiation treatment. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8045] 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] I will continue when they have settled down over there; I know that being in Opposition is boring. Is the Minister aware of figures released by the then Minister of Corrections Dr Nick Smith that 42 percent of all samples taken from inmates in a new anti-drug regime showed that those inmates were in fact drug positive and can he assure this House that the situation in prisons has improved markedly since the failed regime in prisons of Dr Smith and the National Government? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I can confirm that random drug testing now has identified a figure of 13 percent—not 42 percent as occurred under the National Government. I consider that progress. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave of the House to table the Parole Board’s decision to grant recidivist sex offender John Clarke back-end home detention which states that he will not present an undue risk to the safety of the community. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table a report where the Department of Corrections is reported to have stated that recidivist sex offender John Clarke has a high risk of reoffending. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8045] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members. On the first point members must confine themselves to matters that are personal to the member who seeks leave. Failure to do so of course as has already been indicated will in fact prejudice leave being given to others. So I ask all members in the House to note that the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings are very clear on that point. 
On the different point there is of course no rule in the Standing Orders against Ministers being able to ask questions. I would note also that to some extent the point of holding the executive to account is taken to note in the number of supplementary questions that are accorded to members of the Opposition as opposed to the number accorded to the Government—a matter I have explained at some length previously.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8045] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings on this are very clear that any member may put a question to a Minister or indeed a member in charge of a matter of parliamentary business. Furthermore Madam Speaker if you were to rule that questions should be asked only where a member does not know the answer to the question already very few questions in this House would be asked because the whole point usually is to elicit an answer; and then to proceed on from there—to engage in essentially political matters. Strangely enough this is a political body and question time is part of a political process.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8044] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 First of all I will certainly look forward to those discussions. I just ask you also Madam Speaker to consider the environment we are currently in. This is question time a time when the Opposition and other members of Parliament are supposed to hold the executive of Government to account. We are only three questions into today’s 12 questions and we have already had six supplementary questions asked of the executive by the executive. I wonder whether that is a reasonable sort of thing. I know that people like Mr Goff who has asked four of those six questions are probably rehearsing for Opposition— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point order Mr Brownlee. Please continue. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That comment is not. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is. Well that comment was certainly a gratuitous comment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I want to apologise to Mr Goff for suggesting that he has ambition to be in Opposition. The point is that question time should be a time for members of Parliament and that the privilege of being in the executive is that generally one will be in the loop about what is going on. That may be an exception for some members of the executive but in general it is an environment for parliamentarians to find out what the executive is up to and what it is doing about issues of the day. I wonder whether you might look through  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and other such and consider whether you need to make a ruling about the appropriateness of the growing use of question time by members of the executive to get themselves out of trouble.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8044] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is an occasion in which a member offers a sort of personal explanation and has gone well beyond the matter of personal explanation. The matter of personal explanation concerns whether he actually said that. He said he did; that was actually sufficient. Then he went on to matters that are not relevant to him personally in terms of his honour. I have to say that I will now be talking with Mr Brownlee as leader of the House for National about this issue of granting leave for personal explanations that are not personal explanations. It is a privilege in this House and one that needs to be guarded carefully.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8044] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 350 in respect of the claims made by Mr Phil Goff about my time as Minister of Corrections and the paroling of Mr Neil Swain. On 2 January 1998 I was approached as Minister of Corrections by the  
Sunday Star-Times  
to make comment in respect of the paroling of Neil Swain and I declined to comment saying I was on holiday. I note that at the time none of his parole conditions were breached no offence was committed by Mr Swain. I also note that the police superintendent said that he had no concerns about the paroling. I suggest that for Mr Goff to make the analogy with Mr Burton when he in fact— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows that in a personal explanation he confines it to matters about the member himself. That is why— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: And I have made plain to the House the circumstances are totally different to those affecting Mr Burton.
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:637;Page:8037] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the sitting hours of the House on Thursday 5 April to be from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. This is to ensure that all members are able to return home on the Thursday before Easter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:637;Page:8037] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the sitting hours of the House on Thursday 5 April to be from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. This is to ensure that all members are able to return home on the Thursday before Easter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:8037] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am confident that members opposite can keep those drawers at exactly the same desks for the next 10 years.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:8037] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the first readings of the Aviation Security Legislation Bill and the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and the remaining stages of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) the Criminal Procedure Bill and the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of what work the House might busy itself with in the next short while. But noting that the Order Paper continues to be very very thin and to have not a lot that is controversial therefore indicating that a Government is actually governing I wonder whether he might therefore accede to my request last week to indicate when the many members on our side of the House who have waited for so many years now will be able to offer their contributions on the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill. Some of them have speeches in their drawer that go back 10 years. They will need some time to update those speeches to bring them into the modern age. Can we expect that this bill will see the light of day in the next couple of weeks? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am confident that members opposite can keep those drawers at exactly the same desks for the next 10 years.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:8037] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of what work the House might busy itself with in the next short while. But noting that the Order Paper continues to be very very thin and to have not a lot that is controversial therefore indicating that a Government is actually governing I wonder whether he might therefore accede to my request last week to indicate when the many members on our side of the House who have waited for so many years now will be able to offer their contributions on the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill. Some of them have speeches in their drawer that go back 10 years. They will need some time to update those speeches to bring them into the modern age. Can we expect that this bill will see the light of day in the next couple of weeks?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:8037] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the first readings of the Aviation Security Legislation Bill and the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and the remaining stages of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) the Criminal Procedure Bill and the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Mongolia—Chairman of the State Great Hural 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Mongolia—Chairman of the State Great Hural 
[Volume:637;Page:8037] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sure members would also wish to welcome the members of the Chairman’s delegation who are present in the gallery.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Mongolia—Chairman of the State Great Hural 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Mongolia—Chairman of the State Great Hural 
[Volume:637;Page:8037] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Mr NyamdorjTsend the Chairman of the State Great Hural Mongolia accompanied by the Deputy Speaker is within the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr NyamdorjTsend accompanied by the Hon Clem Simich entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Visitors — Mongolia—Chairman of the State Great Hural 
Visitors — Mongolia—Chairman of the State Great Hural 
[Volume:637;Page:8037] 
Thursday 15 March 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Mongolia—Chairman of the State Great Hural 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Mr NyamdorjTsend the Chairman of the State Great Hural Mongolia accompanied by the Deputy Speaker is within the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr NyamdorjTsend accompanied by the Hon Clem Simich entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sure members would also wish to welcome the members of the Chairman’s delegation who are present in the gallery.
King Colin: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
King Colin: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8170] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I will take a very brief call in support of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). Although I am keen to stand up and speak on behalf of National it would be very remiss of me if I did not say for one moment that I would like to see those people who take out student loans be just a bit more thoughtful about the courses they take and where they actually spend the money. It is taking them 9 years on average to pay back their student loans which is an improvement from 10 years previously. 
By the year 2014-15 the scheme will cost $12.7 billion and by the year 2034 we expect that repayments will start to exceed borrowings. So for the next 15 years we will see in fact an annual growth in the student loan scheme of about 4.7 percent—about $66 million each year. We will see the forecast loan balance increase on average by about 5 percent a year. 
I agree with the bill; a lot of the things in it make the scheme a lot clearer. I certainly support the object of making it clearer to those people who are overseas that if they owe $15000 they will simply be required to make a repayment of $1000 but that if the loan is over $15000 they will need to pay $2000 and that if over $30000 they will have to pay $3000. 
It has been a pleasure to work with the Education and Science Committee on this bill. However I think in support of everybody who spoke we have to make sure that those people who go into student component funding are a lot more focused and a lot more directed by career advice so that when they do accumulate debts and loans they are aware that they will get value for money. At the end of the day education needs to be about getting value for money and in many many cases in my experience we have seen far less value than the debt that is held out there. 
I have great pleasure in supporting this bill and on that point I will take my seat. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8153] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill  
divided into Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill Minimum Wage Amendment Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper94.
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8150] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8150] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendments agreed to.
Guy Nathan: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8147] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 It is great to take a call. I have had people in my office who have been particularly concerned about Part 3 “Minimum Wage Act 1983”. My office is located in Levin and listeners will know that we have had the closure of the Kimberley Centre. Some of its residents are now out in the community and are doing a very good job working in certain sectors of our community. 
Recently I visited Jimmy a young fellow working in a horse stable. He was doing a very very good job cleaning out the stables and feeding the horses. I must say that he was getting a small amount of pay—about $4 an hour—but in respect of the work he was doing his employers said that his productivity levels were not as great as those of other people. Yet he turns up every morning bright and early he enjoys his work and his employers love the work he does for them. He is very much part of their business and he has high self-esteem. Although it would take Jimmy a lot longer to do the job than others would take he feels very much rewarded by the work he does. 
The concern out there in the community of Horowhenua in moving through this Part 3 is that some employers will actually not employ these people. That is a real concern. It is a concern that a lot of people who have been through my office have about this bill. Although this is Labour’s ideology—it is all about its ideology is it not—the reality is that people are really concerned particularly about Part 3. This bill has taken 3 years to be put through because Labour has not been able to get consensus around the House. That is how long it has taken for the bill to go through and for Labour to get the bill into the Chamber tonight to be debated in the Committee stage. 
It is interesting that the Labour Party has caved in to the union movement. The real concern I have is that labour inspectors can turn up at whim and revoke the exemption permits. I do not think that that is on and the parents who have been to see me do not think that that is on. We have some real concerns in our community about that. There will be a lot more paperwork involved for employers and although I accept that it is great to have these people out working in our community I think the biggest concern is that their productivity levels may not be as high as those of other people. There are jobs out there but the concern for these people in our community is all around the Minimum Wage Act and whether there will be opportunities for them if they have to be paid $11.25 an hour. That is the real concern we have about Part 3.
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8144] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8144] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 71 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clauses 7 and 8(b) are out of order because they are inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee.
Borrows Chester: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8139] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 We have to ask just how far Labour wants to go in pushing this philosophy on to those people who do not want it. “We know what is best.” are the words that come from those Labour members constantly in respect of this matter—“We know that the system is working fine but we know what is best.” So as we have it at the moment people who are attending the sheltered workshops and working there no matter what level of output they have are receiving a little bit of money each week. 
A little chappie in my electorate who is getting about $50 a week is getting enough to keep him in fags and to pay for Sky and he is pretty happy with that. But we are finding out that he will be assessed as to how much of a fully productive unit he is by the people there so he will be paid a fraction of what the minimum wage would be. It could well be that he will receive somewhere around $25 a week for the work he is doing. We have to ask ourselves whether that is really fair on him and whether it is in line with where Labour wants to go on this particular policy. 
The other problem we have is that there will be a huge number of exemptions. There is an expectation that almost everybody within the workshop will receive an exemption at some period. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: As I was saying before the dinner break when it comes to this legislation members of the Labour Party and the Labour Government say: “We know what is best; we do not care less; eat that!”.
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8138] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4.
Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8137] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to have an additional 3 minutes and 30 seconds to allow me to finish the points that I was cut short of making in my call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to seek the leave of the House. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8136] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Bearing in mind that I did not think the member had quite entirely finished his speech I was going to take a point of order to ask the member to yield in order that I might refer a question to him. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member cannot do that because the member has already spoken in the debate and is unable to take another call. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Just to clarify your ruling I ask whether you are saying that a member may not call for another member to yield if that member has already spoken in the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 54/4 regarding yielding: “It … is confined to a brief comment or question on what the member yielding was speaking on. … [It] is not a means of transferring the call …”. That cannot be done. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I understand that Mr Assistant Speaker.
Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8135] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps my understanding of the Standing Orders is incorrect but I had understood that if there were speaking slots going uncalled then a member could rise and take another call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is quite correct but only if the member has not spoken. In this case the member has already addressed the House and therefore the speaking slot is not available to him.
Pettis Jill: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8124] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill at its first reading. One of the principles we need to pay attention to as the Law and Order Committee members process and progress this bill through its stages is the principle that the bill is largely based on; that is that crime must not pay. I think that is a statement and a belief held by most civilised people. Labour strongly believes that this legislation upholds the principle that crime must not pay. 
Currently the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 allows the Crown to confiscate the profit made from crime after someone is convicted of that crime. But the profits of crime as we well know can be spread among many people—not all of whom are able to be convicted of the crime. Gangs unfortunately often fall into that category when the leaders are clever enough to distance themselves sufficiently from the criminal activities of the people whom they are associated with. So the “Sherpas” so to speak do time but the leaders remain immune from any conviction. So this bill will be effective in that it deals with this problem. It gives the Crown the power to confiscate on the civil standard of proof profits and assets obtained through criminal activity. The bill as I said will help us to tackle those leaders of illegal organisations who do not get their hands dirty. 
One other aspect of the bill I am pleased to see included is that there are significantly protections available for those who are facing forfeiture of property as a consequence of crime because although some people may not choose their associates partners and spouses very carefully families or organisations such as banks can sometimes be innocent victims or innocent third parties. So there will be some protection for the spouse children and dependants of people who are engaged in criminal activity. 
This bill is timely and I look forward to the committee receiving submissions on the bill. I think there will be considerable public interest in the debate. The bill is about seeing that people do not profit from illegal activities. I look forward to the progress of this bill as it goes through the select committee and returns to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Vote: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8120] 
A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to.
Duynhoven Harry: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8119] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the Aviation Security Legislation Bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
referred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 16 July 2007 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).
Vote: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8119] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Aviation Security Legislation Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a first time.
Burton Mark: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Burton Mark: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8119] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I feel the necessity to take a brief call on the Aviation Security Legislation Bill. I was disappointed by the member who has just resumed his seat John Hayes. He started his speech with unprovoked personal attacks on other members of the House who simply exercised their role their right and indeed their courtesy—I suggest to the member—by explaining to the House how they arrived at the conclusion they have on this particular legislation. I think that is a perfectly good thing. The member followed that with quite smutty personal references—[ 
Interruption 
] To be fair before Mr Power joined the House there really were smutty and I thought quite unfortunate references made not only to our Prime Minister but to the head of State of a very very good friend. 
The laboured discussion the member has just gone through of certain intimate and personal aspects of this legislation does draw some questions. I say to the member though in relation to perhaps the most important factual part of what he said that the reason this bill is before the House now is simple: it is before the House now because it is timely for it to be so. It is consistent with similar legislative provisions of our international partners in terms of meeting our international obligations. It is as simple as that. For the member to go off on some wild and woolly tangent with some great conspiracy theory as to why this legislation is here now is simply nonsensical. I suggest to members that it is time we get on with it. I will bring my brief comment to a close there and commend the bill to the House.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
[Volume:638;Page:8103] 
1.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: 
Does the Minister have confidence in the Chairman of the Auckland District Health Board Wayne Brown given that in an unprecedented move the Auckland High Court has set aside the contract that he was responsible for negotiating exposing the hospital to considerable financial risk; does he have confidence in the chairman now that the court has ruled that despite all the Minister’s assurances this contract cannot go ahead because of the way it has been handled with Dr Bierre’s conflict of interest and the use of confidential information in his own bid?  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 My focus as the member might expect is on ensuring that the people of Auckland receive community laboratory services reliably from 1 July this year when the current contract expires. I expect this to be the focus of the three Auckland district health boards involved and I will be seeking advice on their intentions when the first round of conference calls has concluded. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: So will the Minister express confidence in Mr Wayne Brown the Chairman of the Auckland District Health Board who has taken a personal responsibility involved in this process? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Auckland district health boards must now turn their immediate attention to securing community laboratory services from July for Aucklanders. My confidence in the boards will of course hinge on their ability to achieve that and on their ability to repeat the request for proposals process—this time successfully.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
[Volume:638;Page:8099] 
9.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What reports if any has he received on the proportion of electricity which comes from renewable resources? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Statistics New Zealand has reported that increased hydro and wind generation in the December 2006 quarter resulted in 74 percent of New Zealand’s electricity being generated from renewable resources. New Zealand is a world leader in renewables; let us stay that way. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Can the Minister please inform the House of recent reports on more renewables in the energy sector that are in addition to Contact Energy’s recently announced plan to invest $1.8 billion in new geothermal and wind generation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The draft New Zealand energy strategy proposes that new electricity generation capacity meet the cost of its carbon emissions. In response we have seen energy companies focus more on renewables and less on thermal energy. It is not just that Meridian Energy is carbon neutral and Contact Energy is spending $1.8 billion on renewables; Mighty River Power has cancelled plans to develop the Marsden B power station. The Government’s energy and climate change policies are working and show the importance of appropriate climate change policy settings across the economy. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister be more specific and tell the House how New Zealand stacks up internationally when it comes to electricity being generated from renewables? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In terms of the percentage of electricity being generated from renewables New Zealand is third-highest in the developed world after Iceland and Norway.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
[Volume:638;Page:8094] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I seek leave to table—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Do members want to remain in this House or not? They know that when a member is seeking leave there should be no interruptions. 
SIMON POWER 
: I seek leave to table the  
Hansard 
 from 15 June 1995 when Paul Swain indicated to the House that the Labour Opposition would be supporting the Department of Justice (Restructuring) Bill—contrary to what Dr Cullen said earlier today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
SIMON POWER 
: I seek leave to table the  
Hansard 
 from 28 June 1995 on the third reading of the same bill where the Hon Trevor Mallard said: “We took the advice of our justice spokesperson who was supportive of the Bill. On that basis the Opposition caucus is supporting the legislation.” 
Document not tabled. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that normally documents are tabled at the end of the question.