edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Parata Hekia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parata Hekia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12841] 
11. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: Tena ano koe e te Mana Whakawa huri noa i to tatou Whare e whakanui nei i te wiki o te reo Maori tena koutou. Mo nga kaupapa Rangatahi he aha nga purongo kua whiwhi i a ia mo te angitu o te Taiohi Paremata rua mano tekau? 
[ 
Thank you kindly Mr Speaker and greetings once again to you and to us throughout our House as we celebrate Maori Language Week; greetings to you collectively. What reports has she received on the success of Youth Parliament 2010? 
] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 Nga mihi ki te mema. I have received a number of reports on the success of Youth Parliament 2010 in bringing together 122 Youth MPs to debate issues facing New Zealand. I would like to table in the House the report on Youth Parliament 2010. It includes the  
Hansard 
 of question time the general debate and the debate on the age of majority bill and the select committee reports. This report will also be released on the Youth Parliament website. 
Hekia Parata 
: He aha tana ka taea te mea mai mo te pire i whakaaroarotia e te Taiohi Paremata? 
[ 
What can she tell us about the bill that Youth Parliament considered? 
] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The Youth MPs looked at a mock bill that if enacted would have taken the legal age of majority from 20 to 18. In the 32 speeches we heard a range of arguments that were well-researched and well-thought-out. Some argued that the age of majority should remain at 20 years citing tradition and maturity or that it ought to be considered case by case; others argued that the bill was required to abolish age discrimination. The bill was passed by the Youth Parliament with 64 Ayes 49 Noes two abstentions and seven absent.
Parata Hekia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parata Hekia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12841] 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
Tena koe e te Mana Whakawa huri noa i to tatou Whare e whakanui nei i te wiki o te reo Maori. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker and to us throughout our House as we celebrate Maori Language Week. 
] [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Leader of the House should show some courtesy to his colleague who in Maori Language Week will be asking her question in te reo Maori.
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12838] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Pork Industry Board Act 1997—in particular schedule 2 which allows the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking the leave of the House to table an Act? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Yes pointing out a provision— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are not going to do that. Members have the statutes available to them every day. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: It contradicts what the Minister said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will not use that provision to try to score points. Members have that information available to them endlessly.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12838] 
8. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she agree with all the Prime Minister’s statements on employment relations? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was it the policy intention of the Government when it introduced the 90-day trial legislation that the general good-faith provision would override the specific exclusion of the requirement to give reasons for dismissal in writing? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The trial period has always been designed to work in the context of good faith. One does not override another; they work in tandem. They both work together. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was it her intention that the Interpretation Act would be overruled by her 90-day trial legislation? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I think the member is asking me for a legal interpretation of how the Employment Relations Act interfaces with the Interpretation Act. Actually as a matter of statutory interpretation I would have thought that the Employment Relations Act was subject to the Interpretation Act. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Given her last answer and given the fact that the Interpretation Act makes clear that the specific overrules the general was it the policy intention of the Government when it introduced the 90-day trial legislation that the general good-faith provision would override the specific exclusion of the requirement to give reasons for dismissal in writing? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The intention of the policy and of the legislation is that good faith applies during the 90-day trial provision with the exemption of section 4(1A)(c). 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was it the policy intention of the Government when it introduced the 90-day trial legislation that the general good-faith provision would be equal to override or be subject to the specific exclusion of the requirement to give reasons for dismissal in writing? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The intention of the legislation is that the good-faith provisions apply and they require an employer to be responsive communicative and subject to good-faith provisions.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12837] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter from me to the Minister of Health dated 9 July—some 3 weeks ago—regarding the cut in after-hours general practitioner services in Rangiora. To date he has not replied to me personally. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12833] 
5. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What progress has been made on cutting red tape in the building sector? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 More good news! In fact it is yet another stitch in the rich tapestry of success that this Government is having in building a brighter future. Earlier this month I announced the first of two MultiProof approvals which are consents that volume builders can apply for. Once they have that consent they can build their building as many times as they wish. I want the House to know how good it was to issue the first of those approvals in Palmerston North. The company reported that it saved 45 percent of the cost of getting the consent for the building and it got the consent in 3 days rather than the statutory 20 days that it normally takes. 
Jonathan Young 
: What other measures is the Government planning to streamline consenting and to reduce costs in the building sector? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: My personal modesty would stop me from going through the entire list of the gains but several measures are under way to get cheaper buildings in New Zealand while maintaining quality. The main one is the review of the Building Act which is moving towards simpler clearer and more flexible building standards.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:665;Page:12827] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Going in reverse order I will let the member know how things are going in due course. Second the Infrastructure Bill of course is available for third reading and will be read a third time in due course but the Government is making such extraordinary progress in advancing infrastructure throughout New Zealand that the urgency around that bill is not quite what it was just 18 months ago when the economy was found to be in such desperate straits. Finally the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill will be sent to the special select committee considering other constitutional bills at this time.
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12839] 
9. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What progress has been made to recruit sufficient probation officers to meet the growth in the number of offenders serving their sentences in the community? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am pleased to inform the House that the Department of Corrections has now reached its goal of employing 246 new probation officers following an injection of $256 million in last year’s Budget. Over the last 5 years the number of community-based offenders has risen from 24000 to 38000 and they are completing 45000 orders. However the previous Government failed to fund the department adequately and it could not employ the staff needed to supervise these offenders. I have met most of the new probation officers at graduations around the country and I have been very impressed with the knowledge enthusiasm and professionalism shown by these new staff members. 
Paul Quinn 
: What other notable progress has been made by the Department of Corrections over the past 18 months? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: There is too much to tell the member in one answer. I am pleased to report though that the department has just received its highest-ever result in the latest trust and confidence survey. Research New Zealand’s June 2010 quarterly survey showed that 61 percent of the respondents have confidence in the Department of Corrections. This is a significant improvement on the figure of 40 percent in June 2008 recorded by the previous administration under the previous Minister of Corrections Phil Goff. The considerable progress made by the department over the last 18 months reflects the excellent work done by staff and the importance that this Government places on its law and order responsibilities. 
David Garrett 
: Does she agree that non-violent offenders whose offending primarily arises from drug and alcohol addiction are better and more cheaply treated in community-based facilities rather than in prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Generally yes. But I am also aware that these same people have been known to kill others by drink or drug-driving so the courts quite appropriately have the power to sentence such people to imprisonment.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Volume:665;Page:12827] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could indicate which select committee the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill is likely to go to for consideration and whether the Infrastructure Bill is likely to receive its third reading next week. The Infrastructure Bill seems to be taking quite a long time to move through Parliament and we were operating under the assumption that it was part of the Government’s step change programme for the economy. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could let us know whether the third reading of that bill is scheduled for next week. Finally I have an early question about the House sitting programme for 2011 and that is whether he has begun work on it because it appears that the only area where he is indeed closing the gap with Australia is in terms of the number of House sitting days of the two Parliaments on either side of the Tasman.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:665;Page:12827] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next week the Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill will be read a third time. The House will also consider the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill and other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday will be a members’ day.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:665;Page:12827] 
Thursday 29 July 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Karakia 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next week the Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill will be read a third time. The House will also consider the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill and other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday will be a members’ day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could indicate which select committee the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill is likely to go to for consideration and whether the Infrastructure Bill is likely to receive its third reading next week. The Infrastructure Bill seems to be taking quite a long time to move through Parliament and we were operating under the assumption that it was part of the Government’s step change programme for the economy. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could let us know whether the third reading of that bill is scheduled for next week. Finally I have an early question about the House sitting programme for 2011 and that is whether he has begun work on it because it appears that the only area where he is indeed closing the gap with Australia is in terms of the number of House sitting days of the two Parliaments on either side of the Tasman. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Going in reverse order I will let the member know how things are going in due course. Second the Infrastructure Bill of course is available for third reading and will be read a third time in due course but the Government is making such extraordinary progress in advancing infrastructure throughout New Zealand that the urgency around that bill is not quite what it was just 18 months ago when the economy was found to be in such desperate straits. Finally the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill will be sent to the special select committee considering other constitutional bills at this time.
Henare Tau: Infrastructure Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Infrastructure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:665;Page:12496] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Twenty-nine smoke-free days ago there was a clog in the system. Like any infrastructure one has to get in there put in a stent and unclog the arteries. This is what the Infrastructure Bill does. I could not believe my luck when I looked at the notes and I looked at the bill more seriously than I have for a long time. I saw that it was about unclogging the arteries of what can only be considered an appalling state of affairs. We have a country that wants to get ahead just like anybody would want to get ahead. It wants to show off and it wants to go out at a rate of knots that will take this country further and faster than it has ever gone before but it cannot because of the build-up of plaque and the build-up of a clogged system. 
I consider this bill to be the economic stent taking the red corpuscles to the tissues of the nation. It is taking the red corpuscles to the tissues of the nation. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Spell it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: T-i-s-s-u-e-s. There we are—“tissues”. It is great to be back. It is great to be back in the fold of those who want to see the arteries of our nation unclogged so that we can get ahead. 
Hon Member 
: Welcome home. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I thank that member very much. 
Let us be serious. We are a small nation. I do not want to stand here and tell the nation what happened in the last 9 years of the Labour Government. 
Chris Tremain 
: “But I will.”! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No I will not say: “But I will.” I will say that unless we have good infrastructure unless we have a good system whereby people can get ahead—and that is from the smallest business the one-man operation to the 200 300 or 400-person operation—and unless we allow those companies and businesses to succeed we are not going anywhere. The net effect of having a poor infrastructure can only be a poor future for our children and our grandchildren. 
I know it might be funny to use the analogy of my unfortunate experience 29 smoke-free days ago but it is a serious matter. Unless we unclog those arteries and unless we unclog the systems that are clogging up business and the airways I think that we will be in trouble. It is just like me. If I had not had that stent put in to open up the artery I would have been in some serious serious trouble. The future would not have been bright for me my children or my grandchildren. 
I see this matter actually as being above all else. We can talk about the foreshore and seabed and about all sorts of things but clearly if we are to move this nation forward economically then we have to have the tools with which we can do just that and can do justice to our kids and our grandchildren. Without further ado I say that it is essential—it is essential—that our infrastructure is there and can cope with what will hopefully come in the future: better roads better rail better infrastructure and better utilities for the whole of the nation.
Bennett David: Electricity Industry Bill — Second Reading 
Bennett David: Electricity Industry Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:12489] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take just a short call on the Electricity Industry Bill basically to refute the load of rubbish we have just heard from the previous speaker Charles Chauvel about the glory of the previous Labour Government in keeping electricity prices down. Under Labour the price of electricity for consumer groups rose by 72 percent. 
Hon Members 
: What? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It rose by 72 percent. That is how much electricity costs increased under the Labour Government. It was good at controlling costs was it not? It was really good at controlling costs! Members opposite come into the House cry crocodile tears and say that they are sorry and that a Labour Government would not do the same thing again but those members cannot be trusted. One cannot trust Labour. When in Government it ripped billions of dollars out of the electricity sector out of those State-owned enterprises. It took $3.1 billion out of the sector and it increased the price of electricity for consumers by 72 percent. That is not a Government that is fair and equitable and is looking after those who have to pay their power bills; that is a Government that raped and pillaged the power industry for 9 years to pay for Labour’s election promises. 
The National Government has put this bill together to give a system that will provide fairness and competition. The good people of the South Island will be looking at this bill and saying that finally they have some competition in their power market in the south. This bill will give some diversity to the companies that are producing the power so that they can meet renewable targets. 
Under National the renewable energy targets have gone up. We have more renewable energy coming on board now than there was under the previous Labour Government which was going to ban thermal generation. It was going to increase the price of power and it would not have had a word or a measure for the consumers. It was just going to do it and rip the guts out of that industry. 
This is a good bill. It helps New Zealand consumers it helps the New Zealand electricity industry and it is important for the structure and direction of the industry. We support it 100 percent and it will be in the best interests of New Zealanders going forward. We commend this bill to the House.
Wilkinson Kate: Governor-General Bill — First Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Governor-General Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:12454] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour)  
on behalf of the Prime Minister 
: 
 I move  
That the Governor-General Bill be considered by the Government Administration Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 14 September 2010 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on 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 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c) 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:12495] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electricity Industry Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12442] 
11. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What has been the result of the extra $124.5 million that the Government provided for housing as part of the fiscal stimulus package? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Housing New Zealand has carried out well over 20000 upgrades to State houses. Of those over 11000 were funded directly by the stimulus package. That is 11000 additional families who would otherwise still live in old cold houses full of mould that the previous Government left them in. The package also paid for 87 new State houses out of the 846 additional State houses that have been delivered over the last 2 financial years. The package also provided work for thousands of workers during a downturn. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What are the current challenges facing housing? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The State housing portfolio was left to us with significant challenges. In fact I am advised that there are more than 20000 State houses that are the wrong size in the wrong place or in a serious state of disrepair. This Government wants the right houses of the right standard in the right places in New Zealand for those most in need. 
Moana Mackey 
: Does he understand that while the recession may be over for him and his National colleagues it is not over for the 11000 people currently sitting on Housing New Zealand Corporation’s waiting list; and maybe instead of patting himself on the back for the fact that he delivered an 80 percent cut in the housing budget he might want to do his job and help get those families into housing? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The House might be interested to know that the waiting list has remained at around 10000 people for the last decade—10000 every year for the last decade. The question should be asked how the National Government was able to hold the waiting list at 10000 during a recession when the previous Labour Government could not hold it at that even during the good times.
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12441] 
9. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has been made on the Newmarket viaduct replacement project? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce that the southern half of the Newmarket viaduct replacement project will be completed more than 6 months ahead of schedule on 6 September. The initial opening of three lanes is an important milestone in the $215 million project. Contractors are now on track to complete a fourth southbound lane by early 2011. The delivery of this new stretch of motorway 6 months early matches the performance of the team working on the Manukau Harbour crossing which is also due to be completed 6 months early. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What contribution has Government funding made to the early completion of roading projects like the Newmarket viaduct? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am pleased that this Government’s $10.7 billion commitment to State highway building over 10 years has provided a secure pipeline that has given contractors the confidence to continue investing in people and machinery and complete projects more quickly. The Contractors Federation stated last week: “The subsequent steady stream of projects and funding announcements have turned that enthusiasm into a higher level of confidence in an industry that would otherwise be focusing on a reduction of capacity.” The Government and industry are now able to look confidently ahead and deliver transport infrastructure projects that will assist New Zealand’s economic recovery.
Hide Rodney: Governor-General Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Governor-General Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:12451] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was so wrapped up in that speech that I am sure if the member sought leave to have a further speech the House would grant it because it was so riveting. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. A member cannot seek leave on behalf of another member.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Mining in Conservation Areas—Land Not to be Removed from Schedule 4 Employment 90-day Trial Period—Government Response to Department of Labour Report 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Mining in Conservation Areas—Land Not to be Removed from Schedule 4 Employment 90-day Trial Period—Government Response to Department of Labour Report 
[Volume:665;Page:12444] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Phil Goff seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement today relating to mining in schedule 4 of the conservation estate. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The purpose of the urgent debate procedure is to provide an opportunity for the House to hold the Government accountable for its decisions. As Speaker’s ruling 175/6 makes clear not every ministerial announcement even an important one will give grounds for an urgent debate. There must be such an element of urgency that the matter must take precedence over other business. The Government’s announcement that it no longer plans to remove any land from schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 for the purposes of further mineral exploration or extraction proposes no change to the status quo. In those circumstances I do not believe there is any justification that would require the setting aside of the usual business of the House to debate this matter. This application for an urgent debate is therefore declined. 
I have also received a letter from the Hon Trevor Mallard seeking an urgent debate on the Government’s reaction to the Department of Labour report entitled  
Trial Employment Periods: An Evaluation of the First Year of Operation 
. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. This report evaluates the 90-day trial employment period that came into effect on 1 March 2009. The findings of the report have been referred to by the Government when announcing recent policy changes to extend the 90-day trial period. The findings of the report although important can be examined in a number of ways by the House. An oral question on this matter has been lodged and answered today. Also in considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House it is relevant to consider whether the matter proposed to be debated must come before the House reasonably soon in the form of legislation. The Government has announced that it intends to introduce legislation into Parliament soon to enact the proposed changes. The consideration of this legislation will provide the opportunity to debate the evaluation of the 90-day trial period. This application for an urgent debate is also declined.
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12440] 
7. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: How will experience rating of ACC for employers improve workplace safety ensure fairer levies and encourage appropriate return-to-work programmes? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The current system of averaging accident compensation levies means that safer workplaces are paying for the substandard work practices of others. Experience rating removes these cross-subsidies and provides stronger financial incentives for businesses to improve their safety records. Research also shows that keeping an employee engaged with his or her employer through appropriate return-to-work programmes ensures better rehabilitation and this too is encouraged by experience rating. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What steps has the Government taken to ensure that smaller businesses and the self-employed are also given stronger safety incentives despite their size making experience rating difficult to implement? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We have developed a very simple system of no-claim bonuses to be offered to businesses paying less than $10000 a year in accident compensation levies. If such a small business has no income compensation claim—that is for an injury involving someone being away from work for more than a week—in the previous 3 years then it will be eligible for a 10 percent no-claim bonus. The Accident Compensation Corporation estimates that 220000 small businesses and self-employed people will receive this 10 percent no-claim bonus next year. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What research basis is there to show a clear link between safer workplaces and experience rating? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Recent research in both Canada and the Netherlands shows a clear beneficial linkage between experience rating and safety improvements showing the benefit to be a 15 percent decline in accidents. Noting that New Zealand workplaces injure 600 people every week and kill about one New Zealander each week this measure has the potential to save five lives a year and to prevent 3000 injuries per year. The Government is consulting on the specifics of the experience rating system to ensure that we get the detail right and that we get the maximum safety benefits.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12439] 
6. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she agree with all of the Prime Minister’s statements about the Government’s proposed new labour laws? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Will her legislative change include a provision to allow people who have shifted from a permanent position into one where they can be dismissed without a reason being given to be reinstated in their original position; if so will that be limited to people who were in their previous position for more than 12 months? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The member will just have to wait and see what is in the actual wording of the proposed bill. Can I say in relation to the 90-day trial that there will be workers who do not want to leave the security of their present job and go to a new job with a 90-day trial but this policy is helpful to those on the margins those who have not had a job for awhile those who are young and inexperienced and migrants who do not have sufficient command of English. Those people can ask to be given a go and can get their foot in the employment market. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What reports has she seen about— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Welcome back Tau. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Thank you very much. They found a heart and it is a real one! What reports has she seen about the trial period currently available to small businesses? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have seen a press statement from the Council of Trade Unions issued back in 2008 which states: “Any small business that uses this law can expect to see the union and we will also publicly name and shame those that come to our attention.” I can only say that there has been no public naming and shaming which suggests to me that the hysteria around the original bill has come to naught. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What protections for employees has the Government announced as part of the employment reform package? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: We have announced plans to double the maximum penalties under the Employment Relations Act and the Holidays Act. These increases underline the Government’s view that it is important that employers meet their legal obligations. We are also extending the powers of labour inspectors including making it easier to ensure that all employees receive at least the legal minimum wages and conditions.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12441] 
10. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Are there any groups of employees that will be excluded from the extended 90-day trial period? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes any employee or group of employees that does not sign up to a trial period and does not want one in their employment agreement. They do not have to have a trial period if they do not want one. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister support the application of the 90-day policy to the State sector including nurses teachers prison officers and social workers; if so what does she think the impact will be on the quality of public services that New Zealanders receive? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The 90-day trial period is optional; it is not compulsory. I imagine that many groups of professionals like doctors nurses and teachers do not need a trial period because they already have an existing job or they have qualifications and experience to get them into that employment market. They are not the ones on the margins of the employment field who are the ones more likely to benefit from the 90-day trial. But if they want one they can have one. 
Allan Peachey 
: Who would be unlikely to agree to a 90-day trial period? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Well apart from Mr Goff most people changing jobs are unlikely to need to agree to a trial period as they will have a demonstrated work history and qualifications. This is particularly relevant for people like doctors and nurses. I would not expect them to accept or want a trial period. 
Grant Robertson 
: Would the Minister expect any State sector agencies to ask employees for a 90-day trial period? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Well it is up to the sector and groups themselves whether they want to ask for it. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does she expect that the extension of the 90-day law will mean that all 6000 staff of the new Auckland Council will be able to be dismissed for no reason in the first 90 days? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Unfortunately that shows blatant ignorance of the law. The trial period relates only to new employees; it does not relate to existing employees.
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12440] 
8. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Was he consulted by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour in relation to the extension of the 90-day trial period announced this weekend; if so what was his response? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou e te Whare. No. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Does he stand by his statement: “Look the 90-day bill we voted against it we fought against it we didn’t get it … but you go for the greater good and that’s why we’re there”; if so where is the greater good to be found in supporting a Government that is removing basic rights from Maori workers? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: My views are well known on opposing that legislation but the key thing in working with the Government is that we agree to disagree on certain issues. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Not good enough. How can he support a law that makes it easier for employers to sack their workers casualising the workforce; and how will that measure help the 22000 Maori who are currently unemployed or the 36 percent of young unemployed Maori to get into a job? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: We do not support the current legislation. The issue is not about failing to support a trial. A trial is fine but once one removes the right to appeal then that is why we oppose that law. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Does he agree with his co-leader Tariana Turia that there is “no evidence” that the 90-day probation period will lead to employers taking on more young Maori; if so how can he justify his continued support of a Government that has raised GST denied Maori representation on the super-city and ignored his objections twice on the 90-day fire-at-will law? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I do agree with Tariana Turia my co-leader and I work with this Government because it has been able to create initiatives like Mara Kai Whanau Ora Youth Training literacy programmes early childhood programmes and other initiatives.
Urgent Debates Declined — Mining in Conservation Areas—Land Not to be Removed from Schedule 4 Employment 90-day Trial Period—Government Response to Department of Labour Report 
Urgent Debates Declined — Mining in Conservation Areas—Land Not to be Removed from Schedule 4 Employment 90-day Trial Period—Government Response to Department of Labour Report 
[Volume:665;Page:12444] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Land Not to be Removed from Schedule 4 
Employment 90-day Trial Period—Government Response to Department of Labour Report 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Phil Goff seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement today relating to mining in schedule 4 of the conservation estate. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The purpose of the urgent debate procedure is to provide an opportunity for the House to hold the Government accountable for its decisions. As Speaker’s ruling 175/6 makes clear not every ministerial announcement even an important one will give grounds for an urgent debate. There must be such an element of urgency that the matter must take precedence over other business. The Government’s announcement that it no longer plans to remove any land from schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 for the purposes of further mineral exploration or extraction proposes no change to the status quo. In those circumstances I do not believe there is any justification that would require the setting aside of the usual business of the House to debate this matter. This application for an urgent debate is therefore declined. 
I have also received a letter from the Hon Trevor Mallard seeking an urgent debate on the Government’s reaction to the Department of Labour report entitled  
Trial Employment Periods: An Evaluation of the First Year of Operation 
. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. This report evaluates the 90-day trial employment period that came into effect on 1 March 2009. The findings of the report have been referred to by the Government when announcing recent policy changes to extend the 90-day trial period. The findings of the report although important can be examined in a number of ways by the House. An oral question on this matter has been lodged and answered today. Also in considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House it is relevant to consider whether the matter proposed to be debated must come before the House reasonably soon in the form of legislation. The Government has announced that it intends to introduce legislation into Parliament soon to enact the proposed changes. The consideration of this legislation will provide the opportunity to debate the evaluation of the 90-day trial period. This application for an urgent debate is also declined.
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:14070] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 Further to question No. 5 and the issue concerning the green yellow and red cards I seek leave of the House to table an explanation that has been sent to the local authorities which are publishing it today and documents from the website that set out very clearly the meaning of the green yellow and red cards and their implications. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:14069] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 They are similar to the situation that existed with the Hon Maurice Williamson Brian Connell and many other members of Parliament who did not remain with the party they were elected to represent. It is a matter between the parties when they reallocate questions. If a member is unable to be here and asks another party to take the question on his or her behalf it is a matter for that party. Supplementary questions are often traded between the parties in this House; so too can primary questions be traded. We are grateful to the previous examples of National members who have run into trouble in this respect. It has been very helpful to research those as we have come to similar arrangements on this side of the House.
Bennett David: Sittings of the House 
Bennett David: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:666;Page:14104] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As the House has made such good progress today I seek leave for the House to rise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Tremain Chris: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:14099] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee stage of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill to be taken as one debatable question with multiple calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Joyce Steven: Personal Explanations — Careless Driving—Convictions 
Joyce Steven: Personal Explanations — Careless Driving—Convictions 
[Volume:666;Page:14090] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 349 in regard to my driving record. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: When I spoke of my own driving record in my first reading speech on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill I was operating from memory. Subsequent to that speech I received a media inquiry as to the penalty I received. I reviewed my record from the Ministry of Justice. In fact I have two convictions not one for careless driving within a 2-year period in 1988 and 1989.
Power Simon: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:14101] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Mr Chairman— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I’d like to take another call. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Well that is up to the member. I thank the member for her contribution. I heard only the last part of it but given the number of times that she went over the same point I assume that the minutes leading up to that point had been spent covering the same points as well. 
I assure her that I am satisfied with the amendments to the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill that came from the Health Committee. The reason that those changes were made is that that is exactly the way the parliamentary process is designed to work. As I said in the second reading debate—I think the member was here for that debate as well— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Hanging on every word I was. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
:—that is right—the clarification of the grace period and various other matters that were seen by the committee to require sharper clarification than perhaps in the first draft was carried out in a diligent and pragmatic way and for that I am grateful to the committee for its work. I believe that the parliamentary process has worked in the way it should in that we now have a bill that satisfies those concerns. There are no further amendments from the Government nor am I aware of any further amendments from any other political parties. 
To that end I suggest that we get on with passing this legislation to return some certainty to the lives of those couples who are waiting for this legislation to bed in and do what it is supposed to do.
Peachey Allan: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — First Reading 
Peachey Allan: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14097] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I commend the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill for consideration at the Primary Production Committee. Thank you.
Harawira Hone: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — First Reading 
Harawira Hone: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14095] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. I stand to say that the Maori Party will be supporting the first reading of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. Thank you very much.
Joyce Steven: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Joyce Steven: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:14089] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee consider the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 16 December 2010 and have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on 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 and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:14069] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of questions to Ministers and I apologise to Ms Fenton for delaying her question to the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I wish to raise a quick point under Standing Order 372(2) relating to questions being allocated on a basis that is proportional to party membership in the House. The roster I received this morning showed that question No. 4 was to be in the name of the Independent MP Chris Carter. I see that question No. 4 was asked by a member of the Labour Party. I was wondering whether we could have some clarification about what arrangements are now in place between the Independent MP and the Labour Party.