edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:634;Page:6153] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House is in adjournment next week. When the House resumes on Tuesday 7 November priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Business Law Reform Bill the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill and any first readings of Government bills that appear on the Order Paper.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:634;Page:6153] 
Thursday 26 October 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House is in adjournment next week. When the House resumes on Tuesday 7 November priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Business Law Reform Bill the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill and any first readings of Government bills that appear on the Order Paper.
Foss Craig: Business Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Foss Craig: Business Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:6152] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 There will be no bananas or any other fruit cakes or anything like that in my speech which will take a quick few moments. Yes National is supporting the second reading of the Business Law Reform Bill. I thank the Minister and the Commerce Committee as well because I think they did listen to some amendments. But I want to pick up on one point that my colleague Pansy Wong alluded to. 
Debate interrupted.
Mallard Trevor: Sports Anti-Doping Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Sports Anti-Doping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6145] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 I thank members for their contribution. I think it has been light-hearted and members who know my rugby history with the parliamentary rugby team will know that they are not losing too much through my not being there with the team although I will be thinking of them as they play. The member is absolutely right on the derivation of “dope”. It does come from the Dutch and the spelling is “doop”. We would probably have to consult with Mr Duynhoven to get the exact pronunciation later on. 
I thank the Government Administration Committee for the work it has done on this bill. One point I would like to make is that although it was a spirited attack from Mr Hayes he was entirely wrong. International athletes will not be able to become exempted by having diplomatic passports because they will not appear through the system. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 64 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Parts 3 and 4 and clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Parts 3 and 4 as amended schedules clause 1 and clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:634;Page:6137] 
Business of the House 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
Madam Assistant Speaker I believe that you are about to call Government Order of the Day No. 6 which is the Committee stage of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. In noting that the Committee has done an extremely good job with this bill and that there is widespread support for it throughout the House I seek leave for the Committee stage to be taken as a whole and for one question to be put at the conclusion of the Committee stage. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 Because I was not here I point out that amendments to that bill have been set out on Supplementary Order Paper 64 in my name so some questions will be put around those amendments as well. [ 
Interruption 
] There is no problem with that; the questions will be taken together. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. All the parts will be taken together? Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.
Mallard Trevor: Business of the House 
Mallard Trevor: Business of the House 
[Volume:634;Page:6137] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 Because I was not here I point out that amendments to that bill have been set out on Supplementary Order Paper 64 in my name so some questions will be put around those amendments as well. [ 
Interruption 
] There is no problem with that; the questions will be taken together. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. All the parts will be taken together? Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:634;Page:6137] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
Madam Assistant Speaker I believe that you are about to call Government Order of the Day No. 6 which is the Committee stage of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. In noting that the Committee has done an extremely good job with this bill and that there is widespread support for it throughout the House I seek leave for the Committee stage to be taken as a whole and for one question to be put at the conclusion of the Committee stage.
Vote: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:6136] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 9 
New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Question agreed to.
Vote: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:6137] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill be read a second time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 9 
New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time.
Donnelly Brian: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill Racing Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Donnelly Brian: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill Racing Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:634;Page:6104] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First’s member on the Finance and Expenditure Committee Doug Woolerton has already given some very erudite explanations of our position vis-à-vis this legislation during the earlier readings and also during the Committee stage. There is really no need for me to traverse the points he made so lucidly. I just need in fact to reiterate New Zealand First’s support for the splitting of the original bill and for each of the bills created by that split.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:6088] 
12. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 on behalf of  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What steps is the Government taking to assist the horticulture industry with regard to labour force issues? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Assisting industry to meet its labour force needs is fundamental to the Labour-led Government’s economic transformation agenda. I am pleased to advise that the Government’s recognised seasonal employer policy will provide an accessible and productive labour force for New Zealand’s $4.5 billion horticulture industry. The recognised seasonal employer policy gives priority to New Zealand workers first then workers from Pacific States. If there are not enough New Zealand workers available to avert critical labour shortages industry will be able from April next year to recruit seasonal workers from Pacific countries for up to 7 months. I am delighted to report to the House that industry members have welcomed this new policy on which they worked closely with the Government. 
Moana Mackey 
: What measures are in place to ensure a smooth transition from current seasonal labour policy to the new recognised seasonal employer policy? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Government understands that employers are likely to require a period of time to get the recognition required and to make arrangements to recruit workers from offshore. That is why we are allowing the seasonal work permit pilot policy to continue until late 2007. The approval in principle policy—a policy that allows employers to recruit workers from offshore—will also remain available until late next year. After that policy is closed approvals in principle will continue to be used by other industries but will no longer be available to horticulture and viticulture. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that these recognised seasonal employers will have to use New Zealand labour first that skilled workers from the Pacific will be used only to fill specific cyclical labour-market shortages and that they will not come at the expense of jobs for New Zealanders? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes. Recognised seasonal employers will have to demonstrate that they have made every effort to fill vacancies with local workers from the Work and Income register before they turn to workers from the Pacific. Work and Income approval will be a prerequisite for an employer to attain the recognised seasonal employer status. The recognised seasonal employer policy supplements the New Zealand workforce to fill critical labour shortages. Under no circumstances does it replace the New Zealand workforce or deprive New Zealanders of jobs.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:6084] 
10.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What is the Government doing to ensure State housing is being used effectively? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 In the last year the Housing New Zealand Corporation has saved the taxpayer $292 million by shifting people into smaller homes when their families have grown up and by encouraging market rent tenants to buy their first home or rent in the private sector. As a socially and fiscally responsible landlord we aim to meet tenants’ changing needs and ensure effective use of resources. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What reports has the Minister seen about alternative ways to manage State houses? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have seen two rather alarming reports. The first is Dr Brash’s proposal to reintroduce market rents for State houses to trim the waiting lists which is a shameful policy that led to food banks opening in every community during the 1990s. The other part of the proposal confirmed as recently as last week by Phil Heatley National’s spokesman on housing is to resume the sale of State houses. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why did the Minister say that the recent case of an inherited State house was “not an isolated one” and that cases are “arising regularly around the country” then refuse to answer parliamentary questions detailing the number of cases; surely he should be bothered to find out how widespread subletting rorts are given that many genuinely needy people could really use those State homes? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Firstly no State houses are inherited. Secondly we have 11700 people on the waiting list. That member’s Government sold 13000 State houses. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: What is the Government doing about easing the housing shortage in Northland and what assistance has he got from the local member of Parliament for Whangarei? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure that the second part of the question is in order. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I will be happy to answer the first part. Recently the Hon Dover Samuels and I opened a new $4 million 21-unit housing village in Kaumatua Crescent in Whangarei. It provides new homes for older single tenants and for couples currently living in larger Housing New Zealand Corporation homes. Strangely the local member could not be bothered turning up. That person is National’s spokesperson on housing Phil Heatley.  
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table an official Government statement made last week stating that inherited or sublet State houses were not isolated incidents but common “around the country”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:6082] 
8.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Is the Minister confident that Work and Income is administering income support in a fair and equitable manner across all parts of New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why then do some districts such as the East Coast of the North Island continue to show alarmingly high rates of people being denied entitlements—for example people with medical costs not being offered much less granted the disability allowance or people not being assisted with access to running water necessary for their dialysis treatment? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I guess the quality control and audit of the consistency of decisions lie in a very extensive and robust review process. The member will be very aware of the review and appeal procedures for people who disagree with or do not understand decisions made about their entitlements. Generally those procedures ensure that disputes are settled fairly and quickly. People can also discuss their situations initially of course with their case managers. They have 3 months subsequently in which to apply for a formal internal review. After that there is a benefit review committee process and subsequently if dissatisfaction continues people can appeal to an independent organisation the Social Security Appeal Authority. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What has been the particular contribution of Work and Income frontline staff? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am sure members would agree that we are where we are today with historically low benefit numbers and unemployment because of the focus and professionalism of Work and Income staff in applying Government policies. The staff of Work and Income need to be congratulated on the way they have assisted hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders into sustainable employment. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister think it is acceptable that people who are struggling to survive and in some cases people who are facing the danger of death have to wait through the at times very lengthy review and appeal procedures to actually get the benefits they are entitled to in the first place? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I twice yesterday offered that member the opportunity to give me any particular case she would like me to investigate. I would be delighted and happy to do that. But if she chooses to grandstand around people’s disadvantages— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not necessary. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: —I guess that is her call. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a necessary comment. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will the Minister be taking details of the long-awaited single core benefit reform to the Labour Party conference this weekend and can he assure the House and the public that any such reforms under his Government will provide all eligible beneficiaries with a primary income that takes into account their real needs and circumstances? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Cabinet decisions on those matters will be announced shortly.
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:6075] 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. During the answer to the last question the Hon Bill English made a comment that I found offensive. I ask you to ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I honestly cannot imagine what I had said that was offensive to the Minister. If she could tell me what it was and if it was offensive I will certainly withdraw and apologise. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has not withdrawn and apologised but is waiting to hear from the Minister what the comment was. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Madam Speaker it is not necessary for me to repeat an offensive comment. I have asked that the member withdraw and apologise. I know what he said; I have taken offence at it. That is all that is needed under the Standing Orders. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:6070] 
2.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What is the Government doing to support greater uptake of research among New Zealand firms? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 The Labour-led Government recognises that the stronger the links we can get between business and science the better we will be in terms of transforming to a high-value high-wage economy. So next week the Government and Business New Zealand will host a major summit in Auckland aimed at building new partnerships between investors and researchers boosting research-led innovation by Kiwi businesses and ensuring the research community can respond to business needs. The Capitalising on Research summit will bring together New Zealand’s top business people—144 of them—and 60 science leaders along with international leaders in this area. The forum at the present time is oversubscribed and has a waiting list. The summit is just one part of the Government’s ongoing work to ensure Kiwi firms can make the best possible use of science pioneered in this country. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What else is the Government doing to ensure that the results of research are being applied to accelerate the growth of Kiwi firms? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Labour-led Government invests more than $300 million a year in programmes to develop new industries connect firms to global expertise match private sector investments in research and development improve linkages between business Crown research institutes and universities and ensure that science is a commercial reality for New Zealand business.
Williamson Maurice: Tabling of Documents — Casino Legislation Voting Record 
Williamson Maurice: Tabling of Documents — Casino Legislation Voting Record 
[Volume:634;Page:6067] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If you check the record you will find very clearly that I made no comment about how Mr Peters had voted; I sought leave only to table his voting record. The reason I did not do it is that I spent nearly quarter of an hour scaling the heights on the ladders out in the lobbies trying to find it but our  
Hansard 
 goes back only until 1990. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That is not a point of order.
Tabling of Documents — Casino Legislation Voting Record 
Tabling of Documents — Casino Legislation Voting Record 
[Volume:634;Page:6067] 
Tabling of Documents 
Casino Legislation Voting Record 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Yesterday during question No. 12 Mr Williamson sought leave—no doubt to challenge the veracity of what I had said to the House a little earlier—to table a document. I notice that he has not tabled anything so I seek leave to table the voting record on the legislation to introduce casinos into this country. It will show who is telling the truth—Mr Williamson or me. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If you check the record you will find very clearly that I made no comment about how Mr Peters had voted; I sought leave only to table his voting record. The reason I did not do it is that I spent nearly quarter of an hour scaling the heights on the ladders out in the lobbies trying to find it but our  
Hansard 
 goes back only until 1990. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That is not a point of order.
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — Casino Legislation Voting Record 
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — Casino Legislation Voting Record 
[Volume:634;Page:6067] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Yesterday during question No. 12 Mr Williamson sought leave—no doubt to challenge the veracity of what I had said to the House a little earlier—to table a document. I notice that he has not tabled anything so I seek leave to table the voting record on the legislation to introduce casinos into this country. It will show who is telling the truth—Mr Williamson or me. 
Document not tabled.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Party Leaders’ Staff—Ministerial Responsibility 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Party Leaders’ Staff—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:634;Page:6067] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it will be very helpful to have that ruling. Perhaps at the same time you might care to give us a ruling about whether staff employed in the leaders’ offices of other parties can have questions asked about their activities by way of written question to you. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I am happy to consider that as well.
English Bill: Points of Order — Party Leaders’ Staff—Ministerial Responsibility 
English Bill: Points of Order — Party Leaders’ Staff—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:634;Page:6067] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In doing so I think it would be useful for the House to know whether your ruling will stand as a ruling of general principle—that is that any member of ministerial staff could claim to be acting in a different capacity when he or she does something—or whether you inquired into the circumstances of this particular staff member. That is important so that the House will know whether your ruling is setting a precedent for all ministerial staff or whether it is a ruling that applies only to the circumstances of Ms Heather Simpson. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it will be a general ruling.
Ryall Tony: Points of Order — Party Leaders’ Staff—Ministerial Responsibility 
Ryall Tony: Points of Order — Party Leaders’ Staff—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:634;Page:6067] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek a considered ruling at another time from you on this matter. On 10 October 2006 Dr Brash questioned the Prime Minister on the actions of her chief of staff Heather Simpson. Points of order followed which discussed Ms Simpson’s status and the capacity in which she acted. You ruled: “Of course Ministers are responsible for their staff; the capacity they may work in however is a different matter.” The key phrase of your ruling is “capacity they”—the staff—“may work in …”. At today’s Government Administration Committee in public session Ministerial Services advised that Ms Simpson is paid solely by Ministerial Services and she is not paid from the Labour leader’s parliamentary budget. This means I would suggest to you that Ms Simpson has only one capacity she may work in—to relate to the point of your ruling. Therefore the Prime Minister as the responsible Minister must answer questions relating to the performance of activities by her chief of staff as Ms Simpson works only in that one capacity. I would appreciate your considered ruling on this matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am happy to do so.
Points of Order — Party Leaders’ Staff—Ministerial Responsibility 
Points of Order — Party Leaders’ Staff—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:634;Page:6067] 
Wednesday 25 October 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Party Leaders’ Staff—Ministerial Responsibility 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek a considered ruling at another time from you on this matter. On 10 October 2006 Dr Brash questioned the Prime Minister on the actions of her chief of staff Heather Simpson. Points of order followed which discussed Ms Simpson’s status and the capacity in which she acted. You ruled: “Of course Ministers are responsible for their staff; the capacity they may work in however is a different matter.” The key phrase of your ruling is “capacity they”—the staff—“may work in …”. At today’s Government Administration Committee in public session Ministerial Services advised that Ms Simpson is paid solely by Ministerial Services and she is not paid from the Labour leader’s parliamentary budget. This means I would suggest to you that Ms Simpson has only one capacity she may work in—to relate to the point of your ruling. Therefore the Prime Minister as the responsible Minister must answer questions relating to the performance of activities by her chief of staff as Ms Simpson works only in that one capacity. I would appreciate your considered ruling on this matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am happy to do so. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In doing so I think it would be useful for the House to know whether your ruling will stand as a ruling of general principle—that is that any member of ministerial staff could claim to be acting in a different capacity when he or she does something—or whether you inquired into the circumstances of this particular staff member. That is important so that the House will know whether your ruling is setting a precedent for all ministerial staff or whether it is a ruling that applies only to the circumstances of Ms Heather Simpson. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it will be a general ruling. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it will be very helpful to have that ruling. Perhaps at the same time you might care to give us a ruling about whether staff employed in the leaders’ offices of other parties can have questions asked about their activities by way of written question to you. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I am happy to consider that as well.
Tanczos Nandor: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6567] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I thought my colleague might rise but I just rise to indicate briefly that the Green Party is supporting the Judicial Retirement Age Bill. The Minister the Hon Rick Barker made reference to the fact that 68 is a comparatively young age—when compared with other jurisdictions—when it comes to judicial retirement. So I think that is a strong argument. The argument around the need for security of tenure is also an important one as is the enhancement that raising the retirement age will give to the ability to attract senior practitioners and academics who might be put off by a retirement age of 68. I think they are good reasons. I also see merit in the argument that the current age causes a significant loss of valuable knowledge and experience from the bench and I might add brilliance as well. 
I was reflecting on the fact that I have been fortunate to hear Sir Ivor Richardson speak recently—both before the select committee and at some other forums—and I was enormously impressed by the brilliance and the sharpness of his mind and the erudite arguments that he put forward. I also heard Lord Cooke when he came and gave evidence to the select committee on the Supreme Court legislation. So when I look at some of the people of that magnificence who have been on the bench in New Zealand I have no doubt that for some people 68 is far too young an age and that we would do very well from seeing some of those senior judiciary continue on the bench for some time further. So we support the bill. Kia ora.
Fairbrother Russell: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — First Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6566] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 The retirement— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: No no Russell doesn’t need to speak. What can he say? What can the member say? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: After that effort I felt compelled to speak. The Judicial Retirement Age Bill appeals to me because it gives Dr Richard Worth a retirement occupation having seemed to suggest his retirement days have already commenced in the House. 
I have to say that the age of retirement is a contestable issue. There are many lawyers who would agree with me that many judges should be retired at 45 whereas there are a number of other judges who clearly should go on for many years beyond that. Competence of judges unfortunately is not an artefact of age and a very good judge is a loss to the profession and to the courts when he or she does retire at the compulsory retirement age. There are many judges—particularly of the High Court and the Court of Appeal—who retired far too soon on obtaining the age of 68 years and although they would have said they were tired because the workload they carried was considerable from talking to them one got a sense of loss and certainly many of the Bar shared that sense of loss. Having a low compulsory retirement age is not a filter for keeping judges no longer competent away from doing the work. In fact it presents as a loss to the community of some very good minds that seem to get better with advancing years. 
The real problem for judicial capacity is workload pressures. This Government has worked to ease that by spreading the work over the courts and bringing more equity and appointing judges from a wider cross-section of the community so that they represent the community and strangely enough could even find reasons to find some good in the community of Dr Worth. So it is my pleasure to speak in support of this bill; for some judges I know 70 is still too young an age.
Worth Richard: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6566] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 We have just heard a splendid recitation of the history of judicial tenure from the repository of judicial insight in the Labour Government. There is little I can further say in support of the commendable purpose behind the Judicial Retirement Age Bill. However there are probably three points to make. 
The first point is that under the Human Rights Act there are prohibited grounds of discrimination. One of those grounds of discrimination to be found in section 21(1)(i) of the Act is that there should not be discrimination on the grounds of age. But here of course we have an exception to that provision. The exception is that judges—if this bill is passed—are to be forced from office when they reach the age of 70. That provision in the bill may or may not be appropriate but it is an interesting statutory exception to what has been seen as a clearly established principle in legislation: there should not be discrimination on the grounds of age. 
The second point that is important to reflect upon is that in the context of constitutional law it is important that judges have security of tenure. Fixing an age for their retirement is not inappropriate in that context. 
The third point I make in passing is that I believe it is wholly unsatisfactory that we should encourage any outcome that would see part-time judges. This issue has been explored and considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. As a general proposition that committee found some difficulty in contemplating the status of part-time judges. So on behalf of National I express the hope that in supporting this legislation which increases the retirement age of judges to 70 we will not have to confront that particular issue. 
Finally under the Supreme Court Act 2003 which saw the abolition of the Privy Council and the setting up in New Zealand of the Supreme Court as our highest court we decided that it was not inappropriate to have acting judges. Section 23 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 permits of the possibility that judges of the Supreme Court who are acting judges might hold that office until the age of 75. We might see whether this bill will presage the possibility of the age of retirement which used to be 72 drifting back to the original position of 75. National supports this legislation.
Mark Ron: Evidence Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Evidence Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6564] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 In the interests of preventing boredom and tedium I rise to take what will be a very short call. I think Mr Nandor Tanczos has pretty much revisited the bill. Suffice it to say that New Zealand First did not have a member of Parliament on the Justice and Electoral Committee so we are I guess at the mercy of the committee and its findings. 
I will note firstly that Dr Worth was on the committee—and we in New Zealand First do place some store on his abilities in these areas and matters—and secondly that virtually every paragraph in the report speaks of an amendment to the bill. That leaves me wondering what of the original bill remains. It would appear that the select committee has taken an axe to the bill and severely altered it from the bill that the Minister presented. We look forward to the debate in the Committee stage and to hearing the arguments as to why that was done. 
Hon Bill English 
: What does Winston think? 
RON MARK 
: If Winston were here he would say that he thought the speech given by Judith Collins this evening was interesting in that she espoused great concern for the elderly which we never saw when National was last in Government. Winston would say that the Government is in better hands these days than it would have been had New Zealand First bowed to the requests of the National Party and formed a coalition with the great menagerie that National was proposing to form one with. 
Winston would say that as Minister of Foreign Affairs he is doing a great job and actually enjoying it and he would say that he was very pleased with the comments made in the Grand Hall this evening by a number of Americans as to how well they thought he was doing his job and what a great asset he has been to New Zealand in his very short duration in the job of Minister of Foreign Affairs. Winston would say that Gerry Brownlee’s focus on Winston’s expenditure as Minister as Foreign Affairs is a little curious given Don McKinnon’s expenditure when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs. Winston would say a great deal more than that but I say to the Hon Bill English that I do not have the time to completely fill him in on all that. Winston would say that Nandor does a good job as an MP but that he sometimes allows his criticisms of Winston to cloud his judgment. 
I simply say that New Zealand First—and Winston would agree with me—will support this bill through its second reading. We will listen with interest to the contributions of Dr Richard Worth as to why the select committee took an axe to the Minister’s bill and changed it as much as it did. 
Bill read a second time.
Worth Richard: Evidence Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Evidence Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6561] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to contribute very briefly to this debate. I have listened with interest tonight to a number of speeches that Te Ururoa Flavell has made as the member of Parliament for Waiariki. I have been very impressed by the careful comments that he has made on two preceding bills. But I have to say that in respect of his comments on the Evidence Bill he is well wide of the mark. Every attempt was made to provide consultation opportunities for those who wished to be heard. For the reasons that the previous speaker Russell Fairbrother spoke about only a few people afforded themselves of that opportunity. 
The second point I would like to make is that we saw in the deliberations that took place at select committee level a very appropriate use of advisers. When it comes to complex technical legislation good choices made by a committee—in this case the Justice and Electoral Committee—at an early stage can reap huge benefits. We made a wise choice to appoint the Hon Robert Fisher a former judge of the High Court. In my view he has not been fairly treated in the context of the work he has done as a judge in the jurisdiction of the High Court. He gave much of himself to improve significantly the context of this bill. Well we will see when the bill is passed how this legislation works in practice in the courts but I express confidence that it will be a great outcome. 
I make one final comment with reference to what the previous speaker said. I understood him to say that this bill is not a codification of the law of evidence. It is substantially on that path so I believe that the opportunity for judge-made law and other influences to intervene will be starkly limited by the passage of this legislation. 
I look forward to the further stages of this bill and to its speedy passage through the House so as to produce an Evidence Act of which we will be truly proud.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6558] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Beyer Georgina: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6551] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I am proud to take a call in the third reading of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. That previous speech was rather amusing to some degree. It said a lot about caring for elderly people. I do recall some time in the past under Mr Bolger a bit of a reneging of a promise about a surcharge at some point. That really showed a lot of concern for elderly people at that time! I have to wonder to myself with that speech from Judith Collins—from those sometime eloquent words coming from her—whether that was some purport of a vision coming from the National Party because if it were could we put that down to some form of leadership bid that might be occurring? Vision really is something. Those members ought to look at that lady as one of the contenders because when she was talking about those poor elderly people who should be able to make up their own minds I believe that Don Brash might want to consider what he might like to do about making up his own mind on his leadership state at the moment. 
But no the important matter before us in this third reading this evening is of course elderly people whom Labour is committed to—not only elderly people but families young and old. 
 Labour believes in fair treatment and dignity for our senior citizens and this bill continues to make progress on both fronts by providing certainty for all. 
In the bill the maximum contribution for the provision of care is agreed on by funders and providers and it is the same for all needs-assessed residents in a region regardless of the type of care they need—rest home dementia continuing hospital or specialist hospital. Strangely enough I have just come from a meeting with Alzheimer’s New Zealand and those who were present at this particular meeting highlighted to us the many needs to be met in their particular sphere of concern and said that they were able to interface with the Government. The meeting I have just come from this evening is an indication of progress and of taking notice of our elderly people which of course this bill is endeavouring to do. 
Finally I would just like to mention that the bill precludes people from receiving both the residential care subsidy and the disability allowance. That allowance will now be able to be used more widely to go towards the same costs that those living in the community can use it for. With that I commend this bill to the House and look forward to its conclusion.
Turei Metiria: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6529] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 E nga manuhiri tuarangi nga kuia me nga koroheke nga tuakana me nga tungane koutou nga uri o Ngati Mutunga kua tae mai nei ki te tautoko i tenei kaupapa o tenei ra nau mai haere mai whakatau mai ra. 
[ 
To the visitors from afar the elderly women and menfolk older siblings and brothers and to you the descendants of Ngati Mutunga who have arrived here to support this matter today welcome welcome and alight here. 
] 
The Greens are pleased to support the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill at the third reading. We want to acknowledge the very hard work of Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga in negotiating the settlement for its people. We believe that it has demonstrated real genuine leadership in dealing with both the Government and the Office of Treaty Settlements in this process. We specially want to congratulate the kuia and kaumatua of Ngati Mutunga for all of their hard hard work over many many years. That hard work has meant that the iwi and the runanga were able to take on this challenge and succeed. I do not doubt for a minute that we all understand and recognise that all the achievements that we make now are based on the work that has been done in the past—the strength of our elders in keeping these issues alive so that we can take them just a little step further. 
When Ngati Mutunga came to the hearings at the Maori Affairs Committee what was most obvious from their submissions and discussions with us was the desire to put this process behind them so that they could properly plan for their collective future. Their whole approach to the settlement was about the future opportunities that the settlement gives them. I do not mean just the financial and land resources but the sense of having worked through what is a very difficult long expensive process that in the end has strengthened them. They said to us that their Ngati Mutungatanga was strengthened that their unique identity within Taranaki was strengthened and that their collective work had reconnected the ahi ka with Ngati Mutunga across the country. Their work had built a collective understanding of their history with all of the past hurts that that includes—that is true and that is difficult—but also with all of the joy and passion that comes from being Ngati Mutunga. They told us that this work had made them much stronger as a people. This is not the most common experience post-settlement but it was theirs and it means that they are perfectly placed to build a strong and successful future based on their Ngati Mutungatanga based on their successes and based on their desire for a strong healthy well future for their people. 
I will conclude by saying that the Greens are very pleased to have played even a small part in recognising and witnessing this process and we wish Ngati Mutunga all the very best for their future. Kia ora.
Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Henare Tau: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6529] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an amendment to the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill: first to dissolve the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority; and second to transfer the assets and liabilities with regard to taxes and duties—final report of the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has sought leave of the House. Is their any objection? There is objection.
Mapp Wayne: General Debate 
Mapp Wayne: General Debate 
[Volume:635;Page:6519] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member Jill Pettis was doing it all over again was she not? She has been required to withdraw and apologise without qualification. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Twice 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: As my colleague Mr Tisch has indicated she has actually been required to do that twice. What did she do the third time? She repeated the same offence all over again. Mr Assistant Speaker she is simply trifling with your rulings and you seem to be willing to tolerate that. I find that unacceptable. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member’s speech has been terminated.
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6498] 
7.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he share the concern expressed by a visiting American cancer expert that New Zealanders are missing out on high-quality diagnoses because we do not have a PET/CT scanner in this country; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The first positron emission tomography (PET) scanner was brought into New Zealand just under a year ago by Pacific Radiology in Wellington. Although PET scanning is an exciting technology there are a number of issues to consider around its wider use in New Zealand including the sourcing of isotopes which are currently flown to New Zealand from Australia. The case for public provision of PET scanning in New Zealand is under consideration now. 
Barbara Stewart 
: When did his ministry begin investigating the viability of PET scanning and how much longer does he anticipate these investigations will take? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answers to the member’s two questions are earlier this year and early next year. 
Ann Hartley 
: What is the process for deciding whether new technologies such as PET scanning should be introduced into New Zealand’s public health system? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: A process to assess new technologies was formulated recently—earlier this year. PET scanning became the first technology to undergo assessment. The process is designed to assess whether we need this or that new technology and if so how many bits of kit we need how and where we will place them and how they will be funded. I am meeting with the relevant advisory committee on the PET scanner tomorrow to update myself on progress and I anticipate that the final decision to proceed—or not—will be made early in the new year. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is it possible that we are being denied the benefits of what has been described as the gold standard in cancer imaging because of bureaucratic dithering about who should pay for it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No we do not have bureaucratic dithering; we have a fairly determinative process to work out whether when where and how we fund such items.