edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13376] 
9.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: How do today’s announcements on the outcomes of the review of Parts 4 and 4A of the Commerce Act 1986 contribute to the Government’s economic transformation agenda in terms of its focus on promoting investment in infrastructure? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I cannot state it better than the acting chief executive of Vector who said today that the decisions highlighted the Government’s clear intent to provide the right incentives and regulatory certainty for infrastructure companies to invest and innovate with confidence. He said: “The focus on forward looking incentives rather than backward looking means we can concentrate on building the future.” This is precisely the outcome that the Government wanted to achieve with the review and I believe that the new approach will promote clarity certainty timeliness and predictability for business—all of which are features of a credible and effective regulatory regime. 
Dave Hereora 
: What are the new features of the proposed regulatory framework for businesses that face little or no competition but are important to the economy? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The most significant change that will improve the regulatory environment is that the methods for establishing costs—the input methodologies—will be set in advance by the Commerce Commission and will be subject to merits review by way of appeal to the High Court. These input methodologies will then provide the basis for implementing appropriate regulatory control which will include information disclosure negotiate-arbitrate and a customised pricing option to replace the thresholds regime. This means businesses will be given certainty which will encourage them to invest in infrastructure and to innovate for the benefit of future generations of New Zealanders. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that answer is the Minister aware that the airline industry is having long-run battles with our major airports over charges and can she inform the House whether the proposed review of Parts 4 and 4A of the Commerce Act will address this concern and bring these long battles to an end? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am very aware of the publicity surrounding those issues and although I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee as to the outcome of the battle to which the member refers it does look positive because the chief executive of Auckland International Airport said after commending the thorough process that we had adopted that the airport was “committed to making the proposed legislative environment work to the fullest potential and we look forward to our airline customers joining us in that commitment.” The chief executive of the Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand said: “We were just asking for some rules and a referee and it looks as though we are going to get them.” Our message seems to have got through finally and we are really appreciative of that.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13369] 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it the Government’s intention that publicity should not be considered an election advertisement under the Electoral Finance Bill if it refers only to “the Government” and does not mention any particular political party; if so why? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Right given the noise at the beginning of the question we will have this question in silence. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It depends entirely on the context in which the term “the Government” is used. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that this is one of the areas that the chief executive of the Electoral Commission targeted as having one two three or maybe four different interpretations; and to whom do we go to find out what the situation is? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is certainly not my job to decide but I think any sensible person would think that this press release which is headed: “Press release by the New Zealand Government—The Government has approved new investment of $2.8 million to relocate and upgrade the adult orthopaedic ward at Wellington Hospital.” informed the public provided facts was made within months of an election and was the bread-and-butter job of the Government of the day. It was made by Wyatt Creech. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware of the exchange this morning on Radio New Zealand National during which the presenter said: “That’s a new provision. Can the Government technically be regarded as a type of party?” and the chief executive of the Electoral Commission who is meant to decide these things replied: “Given that there are more than one party in the Government then yes governmental parties are a type of party as are parliamentary parties as are Opposition parties.”? That means the chief executive says the Minister is wrong. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I certainly do not believe that is the case. It depends on the context in which the advertisement is used. 
Hon Bill English 
: What about the context of an ad published in the  
New Zealand Herald  
yesterday at least by the Imported Motor Vehicle Dealers Association which attacks the Government and not Labour; would that ad which attacks the Government and not Labour count as an election advertisement next year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is not my job to interpret that. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister’s willingness to give interpretations that favour the Government whenever she is asked questions indicate that she will apply the law of common sense to Labour but apply the actual law of Parliament to everybody else? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No because the example I gave was the Government of the day which happened to be a National Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the Government has had 2 years to consider this law why can she not tell the House whether the ad I referred to before which attacked the Government over its policies would count as an election advertisement? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because it is not my job to do so.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13369] 
3.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How does New Zealand perform in terms of OECD statistics in cardiac health care? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 New Zealand’s health professionals should be very proud of the latest OECD figures. New Zealand as this graph I have here shows has the best 30-day survival rate for hospital treatment of a heart attack in the entire OECD. It shows that cardiac health services in this country are among the best in the world. The Government is preventing heart disease by tackling obesity through programmes to improve nutrition and to get people physically active. 
Jill Pettis 
: What other successes are being reported in health? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: This Government is getting real results in health and it is tackling the disparities of the 1990s. There has been a 24 percent increase in consultation rates for the elderly as we have lowered general practitioner fees—something Mr Ryall seeks to reverse. The latest cancer waiting times show that 97 percent of people referred for radiation treatment receive it within 6 months and 80 percent receive it within the first 4 weeks. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Will the Minister make respiratory illness including asthma a priority population health objective in the New Zealand Health Strategy now that the OECD report has highlighted our shortcomings regarding deaths from asthma? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There is no doubt that investing in primary and preventive health care including investing in respiratory illnesses pays big dividends for the welfare of our people and the downstream cost to the health budget. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Why is it that according to these latest OECD statistics New Zealand’s death rate from heart disease is almost 50 percent higher than Australia’s; and is it maybe because Australia chooses to invest upfront in more modern medicines that actually prevent heart attacks and strokes which is an approach that saves both lives and money? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As shown in this graph New Zealand’s fatality rates post - heart attack trauma are lower than those of Australia. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware that one in four New Zealand children are affected by respiratory disease; and will that influence his priorities? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Respiratory disease like diabetes and the other complications of obesity is amongst some of the primary drivers of ill health in our young people and it must be addressed.
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13364] 
1. Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Has he received any reports on the proportion of New Zealanders holding a tertiary qualification? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Yes I have. The Ministry of Education advises me that almost 40 percent of all New Zealanders—all New Zealanders—now hold a tertiary education qualification compared with 25 percent a decade ago. Similarly about 14 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher qualification compared with just 8 percent around a decade ago. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Has the Minister seen any reports that demonstrate how much easier it has become to learn on the job? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes; the figures speak for themselves. Since 2000 workplace learning has more than doubled from about 80000 trainees per year in 2000 to about 180000 trainees per year—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. We are at the beginning of question time so I just ask members to respect each other in the House. Some members may wish to hear the answers to the questions and the questions being put so please be considerate of others. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Since 2000 workplace learning has more than doubled from about 80000 trainees per year in 2000 to about 180000 trainees per year in 2006. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister confirm that in 1990 New Zealand had the second-lowest tertiary participation rate of the 24 OECD countries and that the “bums on seats” policies of the 1990s which were put in place to rectify the situation took us to fifth in the OECD but did not create close alignment with the economic and social needs of the nation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can confirm precisely that history. We were second lowest—above Turkey—as I recall. We were then fifth highest as the member suggests. But we have some issues around quality which is why the legislation going through the House at the moment is so very very important. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that the number of tertiary students accessing student allowances has steadily declined from the year 2000 until today. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Parliament Buildings—Public Access 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Parliament Buildings—Public Access 
[Volume:643;Page:13364] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I indicated to the member we are taking time from the House at the moment. I have already indicated I am happy to look at the issue. If any other member would like to make a representation on it to me in writing would he or she please do so so it can be thoroughly looked at.
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Parliament Buildings—Public Access 
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Parliament Buildings—Public Access 
[Volume:643;Page:13364] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Madam Speaker you will remember that I sent you a note on this issue months ago. There is a problem I think—
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Parliament Buildings—Public Access 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Parliament Buildings—Public Access 
[Volume:643;Page:13364] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would just note that this is a matter that I am prepared to look at. It is not normally a matter for this Chamber. It is not appropriate to bring it up here but I can indicate that yes I am happy to look at the matter and to get back to both members.
Copeland Gordon: Points of Order — Parliament Buildings—Public Access 
Copeland Gordon: Points of Order — Parliament Buildings—Public Access 
[Volume:643;Page:13364] 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On returning to my office yesterday immediately after question time I discovered that a young man from Christchurch who is known to me had been in touch to say that he had been denied access to the parliamentary complex and therefore to the gallery to observe question time. Security had intervened to prevent his entering the parliamentary complex on the basis that he had participated in yesterday’s march in opposition to the Electoral Finance Bill and because of a ruling from your office which stipulates that people in that situation are denied entry to the parliamentary complex for 24 hours. I was able to vouch for the young man so that following contact with your office he was eventually admitted to Parliament Buildings and to the gallery late in the afternoon. 
However I found through this incident yesterday that I would like to ask you to reconsider your ruling in regard to that matter—or the ruling of your office because I am not sure whether it is your ruling or one by one of the former Speakers of the House. I want to suggest to you some reasons why the reconsideration should happen. Firstly the security arrangements for Parliament Buildings are now far more stringent than was the case say 12 months ago. Secondly I think the application of the ruling is very arbitrary. I had to ask that young man how parliamentary security knew he had been in yesterday’s march. He said that he guessed they must have recognised him. You will appreciate that there are sometimes hundreds—if not thousands—of people on such marches. Therefore a blanket ban of that sort must always be arbitrary in its application. Thirdly I hold the view that subject to normal security checks etc. access to Parliament Buildings should be the right of all New Zealand citizens as part of the fundamental freedom that is a cornerstone of our democracy.
Cullen Michael: Offices of Parliament — Appointment of Auditors—Office of the Ombudsmen Appointment of Auditors—Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Appointment of Auditors—Controller and Auditor-General 
Cullen Michael: Offices of Parliament — Appointment of Auditors—Office of the Ombudsmen Appointment of Auditors—Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Appointment of Auditors—Controller and Auditor-General 
[Volume:643;Page:13364] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 38 of the Public Audit Act 2001 this House appoint CST Nexia Audit as the auditor to audit the financial statements accounts and other information of the Controller and Auditor-General for the financial years ending on 30 June 2008 and 30 June 2009 commencing on the date on which the House resolves to make this appointment.  
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Offices of Parliament — Appointment of Auditors—Office of the Ombudsmen Appointment of Auditors—Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Appointment of Auditors—Controller and Auditor-General 
Cullen Michael: Offices of Parliament — Appointment of Auditors—Office of the Ombudsmen Appointment of Auditors—Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Appointment of Auditors—Controller and Auditor-General 
[Volume:643;Page:13363] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 26 of the Environment Act 1986 and having regard to section 45F(1)(b) of the Public Finance Act 1989 this House appoint PricewaterhouseCoopers as the auditor to audit the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment for the financial years ending on 30 June 2008 30 June 2009 and 30 June 2010 commencing on the date on which the House resolves to make this appointment; and that the House revoke the resolution made by the House on 18 October 2001 appointing the Controller and Auditor-General as the auditor of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on the date of this resolution.  
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Offices of Parliament — Appointment of Auditors—Office of the Ombudsmen Appointment of Auditors—Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Appointment of Auditors—Controller and Auditor-General 
Cullen Michael: Offices of Parliament — Appointment of Auditors—Office of the Ombudsmen Appointment of Auditors—Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Appointment of Auditors—Controller and Auditor-General 
[Volume:643;Page:13363] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 31A of the Ombudsman Act 1975 and having regard to section 45F(1)(b) of the Public Finance Act 1989 this House appoint Deloitte as the auditor to audit the Ombudsmen for the financial years ending on 30 June 2008 30 June 2009 and 30 June 2010 commencing on the date on which the House resolves to make this appointment; and that the House revoke the resolution made by the House on 18 October 2001 to appoint the Controller and Auditor-General as the auditor of the Ombudsmen on the date of this resolution.  
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:643;Page:13363] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave to move the Government notices of motion in my name relating to the appointment of auditors for the Officers of Parliament without amendment or debate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:643;Page:13363] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Of course my statement was in reference to the first week back. There are 2 other weeks after that in which there will be further business for the House to consider and a considerable number of bills ready for their first reading. The main thing I heard on the news was that the Law Society objected to the fact that anonymous donations should remain anonymous.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:643;Page:13363] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Noting the rather extensive list of work the Government hopes to get done in the short hours that remain between now and the end of the year can we assume that the Government is taking notice of the Law Society which has indicated that the Electoral Finance Bill is in fact unworkable and should be returned to the select committee?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:643;Page:13363] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House goes into a 1-week break. When the House resumes on Tuesday 4 December priority will be given to the completion of the second reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill; on the assumption that that second reading is not finished today the remaining stages of the Electoral Finance Bill; and the third reading of the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill if there is time.
AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 12 to Minister 
AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 12 to Minister 
[Volume:643;Page:13394] 
AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS 
Question No. 12 to Minister 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I wish to clarify the response I gave to question No. 12 today from Katherine Rich on whether the Ministry of Education had been informed of concerns about the behaviour of the principal of Hato Paora College. I replied I was unaware of such concerns but would check it out. I have now done so and I can confirm that two emails were received in my office from an individual claiming that he had raised concerns about the principal of Hato Paora College during the appointment process by the board of trustees. I cannot attest to the validity or otherwise of the information contained in the emails. However my office has referred the emails to the Ministry of Education and has requested a full report on this matter. I understand that the person who sent the emails to my office is in touch with the police who are of course the competent authority to deal with these matters.
AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 3 to Minister 
AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 3 to Minister 
[Volume:643;Page:13388] 
AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Earlier today I said in answer to a parliamentary question that 97 percent of New Zealanders were receiving radiation treatment within 6 months. I wish to take the earliest possible opportunity to correct an inaccuracy in that statement. The correct figure in fact is that 97 percent of New Zealanders are receiving radiation treatment within 2 months. I apologise to the House for understating the Government’s success.
Points of Order — Parliament Buildings—Public Access 
Points of Order — Parliament Buildings—Public Access 
[Volume:643;Page:13364] 
Points of Order 
Parliament Buildings—Public Access 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On returning to my office yesterday immediately after question time I discovered that a young man from Christchurch who is known to me had been in touch to say that he had been denied access to the parliamentary complex and therefore to the gallery to observe question time. Security had intervened to prevent his entering the parliamentary complex on the basis that he had participated in yesterday’s march in opposition to the Electoral Finance Bill and because of a ruling from your office which stipulates that people in that situation are denied entry to the parliamentary complex for 24 hours. I was able to vouch for the young man so that following contact with your office he was eventually admitted to Parliament Buildings and to the gallery late in the afternoon. 
However I found through this incident yesterday that I would like to ask you to reconsider your ruling in regard to that matter—or the ruling of your office because I am not sure whether it is your ruling or one by one of the former Speakers of the House. I want to suggest to you some reasons why the reconsideration should happen. Firstly the security arrangements for Parliament Buildings are now far more stringent than was the case say 12 months ago. Secondly I think the application of the ruling is very arbitrary. I had to ask that young man how parliamentary security knew he had been in yesterday’s march. He said that he guessed they must have recognised him. You will appreciate that there are sometimes hundreds—if not thousands—of people on such marches. Therefore a blanket ban of that sort must always be arbitrary in its application. Thirdly I hold the view that subject to normal security checks etc. access to Parliament Buildings should be the right of all New Zealand citizens as part of the fundamental freedom that is a cornerstone of our democracy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would just note that this is a matter that I am prepared to look at. It is not normally a matter for this Chamber. It is not appropriate to bring it up here but I can indicate that yes I am happy to look at the matter and to get back to both members. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Madam Speaker you will remember that I sent you a note on this issue months ago. There is a problem I think— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I indicated to the member we are taking time from the House at the moment. I have already indicated I am happy to look at the issue. If any other member would like to make a representation on it to me in writing would he or she please do so so it can be thoroughly looked at.
Offices of Parliament — Appointment of Auditors—Office of the Ombudsmen Appointment of Auditors—Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Appointment of Auditors—Controller and Auditor-General 
Offices of Parliament — Appointment of Auditors—Office of the Ombudsmen Appointment of Auditors—Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Appointment of Auditors—Controller and Auditor-General 
[Volume:643;Page:13363] 
Offices of Parliament 
Appointment of Auditors—Office of the Ombudsmen 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 31A of the Ombudsman Act 1975 and having regard to section 45F(1)(b) of the Public Finance Act 1989 this House appoint Deloitte as the auditor to audit the Ombudsmen for the financial years ending on 30 June 2008 30 June 2009 and 30 June 2010 commencing on the date on which the House resolves to make this appointment; and that the House revoke the resolution made by the House on 18 October 2001 to appoint the Controller and Auditor-General as the auditor of the Ombudsmen on the date of this resolution.  
Motion agreed to. 
Appointment of Auditors—Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 26 of the Environment Act 1986 and having regard to section 45F(1)(b) of the Public Finance Act 1989 this House appoint PricewaterhouseCoopers as the auditor to audit the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment for the financial years ending on 30 June 2008 30 June 2009 and 30 June 2010 commencing on the date on which the House resolves to make this appointment; and that the House revoke the resolution made by the House on 18 October 2001 appointing the Controller and Auditor-General as the auditor of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on the date of this resolution.  
Motion agreed to. 
Appointment of Auditors—Controller and Auditor-General 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 38 of the Public Audit Act 2001 this House appoint CST Nexia Audit as the auditor to audit the financial statements accounts and other information of the Controller and Auditor-General for the financial years ending on 30 June 2008 and 30 June 2009 commencing on the date on which the House resolves to make this appointment.  
Motion agreed to.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:643;Page:13363] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave to move the Government notices of motion in my name relating to the appointment of auditors for the Officers of Parliament without amendment or debate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:643;Page:13363] 
Thursday 22 November 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House goes into a 1-week break. When the House resumes on Tuesday 4 December priority will be given to the completion of the second reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill; on the assumption that that second reading is not finished today the remaining stages of the Electoral Finance Bill; and the third reading of the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill if there is time. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Noting the rather extensive list of work the Government hopes to get done in the short hours that remain between now and the end of the year can we assume that the Government is taking notice of the Law Society which has indicated that the Electoral Finance Bill is in fact unworkable and should be returned to the select committee? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Of course my statement was in reference to the first week back. There are 2 other weeks after that in which there will be further business for the House to consider and a considerable number of bills ready for their first reading. The main thing I heard on the news was that the Law Society objected to the fact that anonymous donations should remain anonymous.
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13142] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13141] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13141] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(4)For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that no pledge card promoted by the Labour Party shall constitute a communication under subsection (2).
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13141] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Anne Tolley be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause (2A): 
(a)electioneering also includes any communication— 
(i)encouraging or persuading voters to vote or not to vote for one or more specified parties or one or more candidates or for any combination of such parties or candidates; 
(ii)encouraging or persuading voters to vote or not to vote for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views positions or policies that are or are not held taken or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or candidate is stated); and 
(b)includes a candidate advertisement and a party advertisement.
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13140] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson to subclause (2) be agreed to: 
to omit the word “explicitly” and substitute the words “directly or indirectly”.
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13140] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson to subclause (1) be agreed to: 
to omit all the words after “In the Parliamentary Service Act” and substitute the words “Funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes will be those which existed in the months before the 2005 general election.”
Horomia Parekura: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13140] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Jones Shane: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Jones Shane: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13139] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hereora Dave: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13138] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Fairbrother Russell: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13137] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13125] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13124] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There are 53 other amendments all to do with the commencement date. They have been ruled out of order as they are inconsistent with the decision of the Committee on the previous amendment.
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13124] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the phrase “31 December 2007”.
Soper Lesley: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Soper Lesley: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13124] 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13114] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13114] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Tolley Anne: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13113] 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We have had only two speakers on this part. It seems very unreasonable to be putting the vote at this point after two speakers to this part of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The part that we are considering is clause 1 “Title”. There is plenty of time for debate on the other clauses which most people will be speaking on anyway. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I am sorry. The closure is not debated. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I have not even finished expanding on Mike Smith’s lying letter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Well the member started off talking about the title. The point is there is plenty of opportunity to talk on those matters as we come to them but we were debating the title.
Mackey Moana: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13113] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Peachey Allan: General Debate 
Peachey Allan: General Debate 
[Volume:643;Page:13100] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Today is a disturbing time to be a New Zealander. I wonder whether there has ever been a more disturbing time in our history. I never thought that in my lifetime I would see a leading New Zealand newspaper state on its front page “Democracy under attack”. The Labour members and their New Zealand First coalition partners can sit there sneer and toss off a newspaper as being a Tory rag but I suggest that they take a step backwards and just reflect for a moment on where they are actually taking New Zealand. 
When I take the warning of the  
New Zealand Herald  
of early this week and when I consider the report that was issued today on Ms Setchell I realise that one thing is becoming increasingly clear: New Zealanders are concerned. The message that is coming out—and it is clear and unequivocal—is that this Labour Government supported by its New Zealand First coalition partners has taken the State sector and turned it increasingly into an extension of the political party that for not much longer now governs this country. 
I say to Ms Setchell that she did nothing wrong. She is the victim of behaviour on the part of people who should have known better: from a Cabinet Minister to a chief executive to political appointees in a Minister’s office. They should have known better. It is a disgrace that this young lady’s name is being raised so often in this House today. It is good at least to have seen a little decency on the part of a couple of Ministers—which I have to say is not being matched by members in the House at the moment—who acknowledged that she did nothing wrong. 
I want to reflect on the number of people whom I have employed over time. Never did I need to know whom they voted for. Never did I need to know their political sympathies. Never did I need to know with whom they were in a relationship. What has happened in New Zealand that a young woman who applied for and was appointed to a job—as was her right—has to lose that job because people were concerned about whom she was in a relationship with? People were concerned about any political or other views that she might have. Is there anything more rotten in a democracy than that? 
I believe that a number of people need to reflect very very carefully on their role in this matter and that goes as far as “Dr 2.5 percent Prebble”. The point has been made in the House and it must be made again that in an environment where the Government has politicised the Public Service in New Zealand and has worked very very hard to make the Public Service an extension of the political party it will be very very difficult for members on this side of the House to have confidence in those in whom trust was placed to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen.
McCully Murray: General Debate 
McCully Murray: General Debate 
[Volume:643;Page:13096] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Numerous times during the speech from the Hon Mr Williamson Mrs Pettis interjected loudly shrieking Mr Williamson’s Christian name as part of the interjection in a manner that was disorderly. I am surprised that she as a former presiding officer did that and I would like to invite you to explain to her what the rules of the House are in that respect. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is quite right. 
Jill Pettis 
: I apologise to Mr Williamson. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for doing that. Behaviour like that is not acceptable during a member’s speech. Thank you for raising that Mr McCully.
Hartley Ann: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
Hartley Ann: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
[Volume:643;Page:13088] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: We will just check that out Mr McCully. I will read from Appendix A of the Standing Orders “Debate on motion to take note of matter of urgent public importance”. The mover and the next speaker have 15 minutes each and the subsequent six speakers have 10 minutes each. So it is down to the members. I just need to check on whether those speaking slots can be transferred as the member asked. I have been advised that the allocation is a guideline so in that circumstance I cannot see any reason why another speaker cannot take a call. Did the member wish to speak?
McCully Murray: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
McCully Murray: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
[Volume:643;Page:13088] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order follows the ruling that you have just given. I have the sheet in front of me. We have just heard from New Zealand First. The arrangement according to the schedule is that the Greens should have 10 minutes followed by the Maori Party for 10 minutes United Future for 5 minutes and ACT for 5 minutes before we get back to National and Labour which have 10 minutes each. I seek your clarification on whether it is open to another party to seek the call and have that speaking slot should the Maori Party as has been indicated not wish to take its speaking slot. For example although I am not allowed to refer to members not being in the Chamber I will say that I cannot see any ACT members right now. I seek your clarification as to whether members from other parties can seek to take up that slot notwithstanding the arrangement that is on the schedule.
Hartley Ann: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
Hartley Ann: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
[Volume:643;Page:13088] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you for that. Obviously all parties are entitled to speak. New Zealand First has spoken. The Maori Party is not going to speak. United Future and ACT are not here. The Greens have indicated that they wish to speak and National and Labour have one more speech each.
Turia Tariana: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
Turia Tariana: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
[Volume:643;Page:13088] 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I just inform the House that the Maori Party will not be taking a call in this debate.
Hartley Ann: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
Hartley Ann: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
[Volume:643;Page:13088] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: It is usually a fairly amicable negotiation Mr English. It is often signalled by the whips.
English Bill: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
English Bill: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
[Volume:643;Page:13088] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 It is a question of following the right process here Madam Assistant Speaker. There is a pre-allocated order that we stick to. It has the effect that those members who are at number 10 on the list have to wait around for an hour and a half listening to excellent speeches before they can give theirs. There are two ways of changing that. One is by arrangement between the whips and that has not happened as far as I am aware. The second way is by leave and that has not been sought as far as I am aware. So we will either stick to the processes around these allocated spots or have a free-for-all again in the general debate—one way or another.
Hartley Ann: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
Hartley Ann: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
[Volume:643;Page:13088] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The speaking slots are pre-allocated but there is no reason why members cannot change position. [ 
Interruption 
] There is no reason why not; it often happens.
Turei Metiria: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
Turei Metiria: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
[Volume:643;Page:13088] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Green Party certainly intends to make a contribution to this debate but as often happens with debates such as this our contributor is running just a few minutes late. We are quite happy if another speaker wants to take the opportunity to speak in the meantime and we will take our time as we can.