edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:655;Page:4569] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement reached in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill to be set down for second reading as Government order of the day No. 1 on Tuesday 30 June and for its remaining stages to be taken on that day and concluded by 9.50 p.m. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Motions — Iran—Support for Democratic Process 
Motions — Iran—Support for Democratic Process 
[Volume:655;Page:4569] 
Motions 
Iran—Support for Democratic Process 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate on the situation in Iran. I have consulted with all of the whips and they are agreeable to this. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the member to move that motion without debate. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I move  
That this House expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who strive for a free and democratic society asks the Iranian Government not to use force against peaceful demonstrators calls for an end to Government restrictions on the media and supports an impartial examination of the recent Iranian election result in the light of widespread concerns. 
Motion agreed to.
Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
[Volume:655;Page:4569] 
Parliamentary Service Commission 
Membership 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Once again following agreement reached in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for Chris Tremain to be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission in place of the Hon Nathan Guy pursuant to section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:655;Page:4569] 
Wednesday 24 June 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement reached in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill to be set down for second reading as Government order of the day No. 1 on Tuesday 30 June and for its remaining stages to be taken on that day and concluded by 9.50 p.m. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4478] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 106 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4476] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will have a go at answering the question raised by the previous speaker Te Ururoa Flavell while the Minister of Transport gets briefed. The indications we had when considering the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee were that the samples were tested through a two-step or three-step process. It is a broad test that indicates some sort of drug and samples were cross-tested for alcohol. There was some fine-grain testing to sort out the particular types of drugs that were there when there had been an early indication of drugs. That research was then used for what was essentially a statistical analysis of the correlation between the accidents the seriousness of the accidents and whether the accidents caused death or serious injury. In particular there has been quite a lot of research around whether people were more likely to have serious accidents if there had been a multiplicative effect—if they had alcohol or a drug or more than one drug. 
The very clear evidence coming out of that research is what intuition would tell us. For a number of drugs having the smoke after a couple of jugs is much much worse than having a couple of jugs or having a smoke. It is not additive; the substances can actually multiply on each other and accidents are much more likely to occur. It is emerging evidence. Some of the testing especially around some of the harder drugs is relatively new. There are research papers on it and although sample sizes are now getting to the point of being valid earlier on they were not. It is an ongoing process but it is very clear that we do not have enough information— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Solely around road crashes? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes it is based on road crashes and the samples are taken from drivers. There is no random testing of blood for people who have not been involved as drivers. I think there is another group—I am just looking for a nod or otherwise from officials—where there is testing of people who are hospitalised such as active accident victims who are not drivers. My memory is that we had some indication as to drug testing in respect of other people in the cars. There will not be any prosecutions of those people under the Misuse of Drugs Act because this is strictly a land transport matter.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4475] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I take a brief call to respond to one issue. Following on from the Hon Trevor Mallard’s korero and from the discussion by the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce I ask the Minister to give a brief overview of how the samples taken for research are used. I ask this question which is on our minds to settle and allay our concerns about the use of that data.
Joyce Steven: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Joyce Steven: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4474] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I will make just a couple of comments in response to Te Ururoa Flavell’s suggestion. I find myself agreeing with Trevor Mallard twice in one afternoon and he will be as discombobulated about that as I am. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Please stop it! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes exactly; normal business will resume shortly. 
The need for this research has been canvassed and I think it is very important research. We need to know what proportion of drivers operate under what levels of impairment whether it is by drugs or alcohol. We have a bit of a window on it from the work done by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research on deceased drivers but it is a very very incomplete picture. My hunch—and it can only be a hunch; as Minister of Transport one worries about operating on hunches—is that it is a lot worse than we think. If it is and there are many people in this country who think that is the case we will have to keep focusing on it and to take Trevor Mallard’s point keep bringing forward more refinements to this legislation. For that reason I think the research is very important. We want as large a sample as is possible. But the trouble is the moment we start disqualifying elements of the sample because certain people do not want it used—and bearing in mind that the tests have already been taken; people are not being asked to have blood taken as it has been taken in the course of enforcement—we immediately reduce the efficacy of the sample; the way the sample works the quality of the sample and the information that is gathered from it. 
I place huge emphasis on the importance of the anonymity of samples when the research is done and the fact that the research must be done within a year and then the samples are destroyed. I hope that that gives the member sufficient comfort. We are balancing on the one hand the desire for people’s privacy and to be respected and on the other hand we are saying that this is a big problem that we need to get on top of. I hope this goes some way towards satisfying the member’s concerns.
Mallard Trevor: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4474] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will make a brief comment on the points that the previous speaker Te Ururoa Flavell made. I have been reminded that we were told at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that an approach like the one that the member proposes would kill stone-dead the research being done. The committee found that research particularly valuable in coming to some of the conclusions it reached and that research is ongoing. Some of the results that we were getting were interim results but being able to relate the amount of alcohol the types of drugs and sometimes the amounts of drugs to accidents was very useful to the committee in making its conclusions as to the shape of the law. 
I understand that there is a balancing act here. It is an area where Mr Henare and I did not quite get to an agreement on—it was not entirely a love-in—but there is a balance. There are cultural issues particularly Maori cultural issues around the taking of blood the storage of blood and what blood samples are used for. The balance that goes the other way is the quality of the research that could well lead to fewer deaths in New Zealand. I am sure that this legislation will lead to fewer deaths. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: That’s fine—informed consent. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well the problem is in getting informed consent from someone who is drunk from someone who is high on P from someone who is unconscious in a hospital or in some cases from people who are dead. We just cannot do it. In my opinion it is impossible to get informed consent for that sample in those circumstances. Although I appreciate that all things being equal and everyone being reasonable it might be a good approach I think that all members of the Committee know that unfortunately the worst offenders in this particular area are not people who are generally reasonable and cooperative. For that reason the member’s suggestion will not work.
Henare Tau: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4471] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I echo what has been said already. Part 1 is the heart and soul of this legislation as my good colleague and able chairman of the committee Mr David Bennett said. 
Hon Member 
: And a great MP. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: And a great MP—so far. I also echo my whanaunga Kelvin Davis in his speech about the scourge of drugs and alcohol in our communities especially in relation to their use behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. It is interesting to note in relation to Part 1 that we now have TV programmes like  
Sudden Impact 
 and all sorts of reality-based programmes but that a lot of what we see on those programmes comes from the United States. Invariably most of the incidents that we see on television are due to two things—drugs and alcohol. The police in the enforcement bureaus overseas do a sterling job of trying to weed out all of those drug-impaired and alcohol-impaired people. We have seen those people walking the white line touching their noses with their fingers and carrying-on in all sorts of ways. Although society would not like to have to go through all that it is a sign of the times; it is a sign that we have to take more responsibility. As my relation Kelvin Davis said if people do not want to get caught then they should not do drugs. If they do not want to get caught tanked up behind the wheel of a vehicle then they should not drink and drive. It is pretty simple. I think of the campaigns about driver safety over the last few years and I know that this bill is just another tool for weeding out those people who do not really care about themselves and who do not really care about other drivers on the road. Innocent people are always the ones who get it. 
The amendments that the Minister has talked about in line with the suggestions by the Hon Trevor Mallard are good ones. They are sensible and they are a common-sense approach to a problem. I also say that when we have a lack of new technology we cannot run ahead of current technology. We always have to keep apace of that technology and not get too far out from it. One day we will have the technology that we see on  
Star Trek 
 and all sorts of things. We would like to see it tomorrow— 
Todd McClay 
: Teleporting. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Maybe we will have a bill before us called the “Drug-Impaired Teleporting Bill”. But it is important to realise that the enforcement agencies are only as good as the tools that they have to police with. We should not try to get too far ahead because we think we have the right technology. I want to say here what a wonderful job our enforcement agencies do—not so much in terms of the drugged or drunk driver but in terms of what they do in trying to protect and serve the innocent people on the road. It is important that we at least acknowledge the very hard and difficult job those agencies have. As I said this provision is the heart and soul of a bill that I think is able to be sold to the public.
Joyce Steven: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Joyce Steven: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4468] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I take a call in the third reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) to address Supplementary Order Paper 24 which is before the Committee at the moment. It addresses two matters. I acknowledge the assistance of the Hon Trevor Mallard in advancing these matters. If I may say so by appearances through this issue he is emerging as a kaumatua of the Labour Party. 
The first matter is a substantive change and relates to circumstances where a driver normally has to do an impairment test before he or she can be prosecuted for the offence of drug-impaired driving. However if the driver is hospitalised and unable to perform the impairment test the driver could not be prosecuted under the bill as introduced. The Supplementary Order Paper will ensure that hospitalised drivers can be prosecuted for a new offence of driving with class A drugs in the blood. There will not be an impairment test for that offence because it is impractical. Again I thank Trevor Mallard for bringing that amendment forward. We had quite a discussion about whether it was going to be class A drugs or controlled drugs generally but across the Chamber we settled on class A drugs at this time for new section 57A inserted by clause 6. 
The second matter is more one of form rather than substance in that officials advised that they felt we had already covered this one. But it was agreed and I am comfortable with amending it to be very clear that the police can advance both the alcohol test and the drug-impairment test at the same time on the side of the road and they are not precluded from proceedings from both alcohol and drug processes at the same time. Amending these clauses will strengthen the message that drug-driving is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. It will also give judges the option of conviction for drink-related and drug-related offences. So that issue is dealt with by amendments to section 71A in clause 10 and section 72 in clause 11 which are the subjects of Supplementary Order Paper 24. 
While I have the microphone I would like to add how pleased I am to be able to lend my support to a good bill. We talked about the various people who have brought it forward: the previous Government back in 2007 and the excellent work of members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee after the election as well. I also add my personal pleasure in being able to bring this legislation forward because drug-driving is a very very big issue for this country. It has been underplayed in the issue of transport safety and I am pleased as Minister of Transport to bring this bill forward. Perhaps my biggest contribution as Minister is the impetus in terms of getting it through the Chamber as we hope we will be able to do by next week. Then I think we really will have achieved something in terms of advancing the prosecution of drug-driving in this country.
Guy Nathan: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4464] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson thank you very much for allowing the Committee to have a broad debate on a very important bill the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). The bill will toughen up the legislation with regard to those who decide to pop a whole lot of pills or to inject a drug into their arm and then go driving behind the wheel. It is important that we protect the other motorists on the roads. 
There has been a lot of discussion on this issue. Unfortunately I was not part of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that heard the evidence but just today I have had a thorough briefing from the officials who I believe have done some sterling work on this bill. There has been some cross-party discussion on some of the Supplementary Order Papers that we will get to in the debate this afternoon. This Parliament needs to send a very strong message across the whole of New Zealand that driving while drugged up is not appropriate nor is driving under the influence of alcohol. 
This is an important bill. It is heading in the right direction. The Supplementary Order Papers on the Table are wide ranging. I acknowledge in particular the work that the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce has done in his Supplementary Order Paper 10 which will I think encompass a lot of what the Hon Trevor Mallard— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s got the same policy intent. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: It does have the same policy intent and that is important. I acknowledge the discussions that had gone on before we got to the Committee stage today. 
I know there will possibly be some discussion and debate on the classes of drugs: whether the bill covers class A class B or class C and whether the drug can be picked up relatively easily when a blood sample is taken. I know from listening to the officials today that heroin does not last very long in the blood and that LSD cannot be picked up from a blood sample but from a urine sample only I understand. I am sure the focus this afternoon will be on class A drugs which are the serious ones. They are picked up in schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The other important thing we need to be aware of is that from time to time when a person is hospitalised the general practitioner or the surgeon may administer a drug caught in the schedule; the example there would be morphine. 
This bill is heading in the right direction. I think it has broad support across a lot of the Committee this afternoon. I look forward to hearing the debate. I acknowledge the work of the Minister the Hon Steven Joyce and the officials.
Mallard Trevor: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4463] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to have a broad-ranging debate here on the understanding that we will not mess around on the later clauses. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Is the member seeking leave to have the bill taken as a single question? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I do not think we want to do that because there are two quite different parts to the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: OK. Well without seeking leave the Chair will give a degree of grace and favour.
Barker Rick: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4463] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I take the next call I draw to members’ attention that we are on clause 3A “Short Title and commencement”. I recognise that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s a pretty broad debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well it can be. I let the member have a wide-ranging speech because the Committee is getting itself into the debate but I remind members that we are on clause 3A.
Mallard Trevor: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4463] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) is now getting pretty much universal support within the Committee. The progress of the bill was started under Labour. There was a long select committee process and I think the bill was considerably improved as a result of that process. Because of the industrial relations position that I held I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and focused on the first part of the bill the bit that relates to drug-driving. I think we made considerable progress in that area in the select committee. There were a couple of outstanding issues but I am pleased to report to the Committee that those issues have been resolved as a result of discussions between the Minister Steven Joyce the new Associate Minister Nathan Guy and the chairperson of the select committee David Bennett. I will outline very briefly for the Committee the effect of those changes. 
The first change is that when people are blood tested and found to have class A drugs in their bloodstream when they have been injured—when they are in a surgery or when they are in hospital—that evidence will be able to be used against them in a land transport case just as it is when people are over the alcohol limit but not in a misuse of drugs case. The second suggestion is that it be made very clear in the law that just because someone has failed a breath test that does not mean that he or she should be then forgiven or not proceeded with regarding drug testing. The legislation is very explicit that people will be able to be tested for both alcohol and drugs. So if for example a police officer in administering a breath test comes to the point where someone is a marginal failure but the person’s eyes are all over the place he or she has trouble walking and is slurring words very heavily—much more than would be indicated by the level of alcohol on the person’s breath—then the police officer will be able to proceed to a drug impairment test. If the person fails that test then the blood will be tested for drugs. 
I thank the Minister for his focus on this matter in the last 24 hours and I am sure that as a result of that focus the amendments that he has drafted will more adequately take care of the policy intention than those that I was able to have drafted without being able to give direction directly to parliamentary counsel. I also acknowledge my sparring partner Tau Henare for the work that he did in the select committee to ensure that Government members focused on these issues. I think that without him the officials might have had their way.
Tremain Chris: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4462] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on this clause of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). This bill has been put forward by the Minister Steven Joyce and I will quickly get a copy— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If you want someone else to take a call I will. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Could you take a call? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Yes sure. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Thank you.
Mallard Trevor: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4462] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Labour Party will not be taking a lot of time on the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. It is not hard legislation; it has to be supported. The task that Simon Power has taken on is a considerable one. To get the definition right may not be quite as easy as Mr Tremain has indicated it will be. I think the one thing Simon Power has going for him is that he now has Rodney Hide within the ministry and he will be able to draw on his experience in these matters and ensure that we get something that will not be criticised. However in order to get something that works I suggest he work with Rodney Hide’s colleague Roger Douglas. 
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Mallard Trevor: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4461] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This comment is addressed to Ms Bennett. It has just been drawn to my attention by people who have watched a video of question time in the House earlier today that Ms Bennett was waving rather than making a one-fingered gesture. It did not look like that from this angle. I apologise to her for the comments that I made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has offered an apology. That is acceptable I am sure but it is beyond the scope of the Committee to deal with it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I understand that but this is the first opportunity I have had to raise the matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Breaching the rules with good intention I assure the member is usually acceptable.
Tremain Chris: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4461] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to take clauses 1 to 5 of the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill as one debatable question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:655;Page:4456] 
10.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he stand by the Government’s report on Auckland governance that the proposed 20 to 30 local boards for Auckland will “provide for strong community representation and the ability for residents and ratepayers to influence decision-making”? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Yes I certainly do. The Government wants local boards to have a meaningful role as a strong local voice on local matters for their communities. This important role will allow the Auckland Council to focus on the critical regional issues. However this is a delicate balance as the Government does not want the local boards to undermine the Auckland Council’s decision making on regional issues. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister agree with Local Government New Zealand president Lawrence Yule and former chair of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance Justice Peter Salmon that the Government must revisit its proposals around the 20 to 30 local boards in order to ensure that the identity of Auckland’s local communities is preserved and that local assets are managed in the best local interests? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I do agree with him but it is not about revisiting the Government’s decision. The Government’s decision has been to consult the people of Auckland. That is why we have the select committee and that is why the process is under way. That is exactly what we are doing. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister agree with Prime Minister John Key that public feedback has revealed “a desire that the second tier could be stronger” should have “more authority and autonomy” and that he had “no doubt” there would be changes to the second tier as a result? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes I do— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: You made a mistake then. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: —and far from getting it wrong as the Hon Shane Jones is calling out that is actually what genuine consultation with the people of Auckland is all about. It is about putting up our proposals and listening to what people have to say. I know that that might be quite a novel approach for Labour but it is the way this Government operates. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister agree with the assessment of his colleague the Hon Judith Collins that as they stand the Government’s local boards are nothing more than tea and scone clubs; if not why not? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I must say that I support Judith Collins. She has been a fierce advocate for Papakura and her district. I have had many meetings with Judith Collins and two letters. She and I are both of the same mind in wanting the local boards to have a significant role to play in their communities. Having said that I point out that as I said in answer to the primary question it is important that the local boards are not in a position to undermine the regional decision-making of the Auckland Council.
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:655;Page:4445] 
3.  
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does she have any confidence in the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections Mr Barry Matthews following recent revelations of a senior manager’s involvement in a drug ring at Rimutaka Prison; if so why? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Yes; I have confidence that Mr Matthews has acted swiftly to deal with this issue at Rimutaka Prison. 
David Garrett 
: Would the Minister of Corrections think it was good news if more drug rings were detected in prisons because that meant that Mr Matthews was efficiently detecting them? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The matter of drugs being in the prison system should not be seen as a positive thing in any light. But it must be seen as being positive that the issues in this case have been detected dealt with and prosecuted. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister of Corrections agree that the mark of an efficient chief executive would be that no cannabis-growing operations were detected because there were none to detect; if so how many more instances of Mr Barry Matthews’ incompetence will she tolerate? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Broadly speaking yes. But it is important that where these matters are detected we acknowledge that swift action has been taken which is the case in this instance.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
[Volume:655;Page:4441] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Obviously I will look at the honourable member’s letter and I will look at the matter to see whether there is any issue I have overlooked. But I repeat what I said a moment ago: one of the key issues the member has specified in this letter is the issue about the existence of information or not. To me answering a question relates to more than just specific information. Some questions might cover specific information; others might not. But the issue of public interest is wider than just the matter of whether substantive information exists or does not exist. So I alert the member to that but I do undertake to examine his letter carefully because I think the issue deserves proper scrutiny by the Speaker. I will come back on the matter only if I find any reason to differ from what I have ruled today.
Hodgson Pete: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
Hodgson Pete: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
[Volume:655;Page:4441] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to take the stand again but the truth of the matter is that I agree with your ruling and I was not asking for you to change that at all. I would be grateful if you could take a look at my point of order—I have provided the Clerk of the House with a copy—and give a considered ruling. My point of order is not at all to do with whether some person other than the Minister gets to make a judgment on whether something is in the public interest. It is not that point at all; it is two other points. I would be grateful Mr Speaker if you could indicate to the House your preparedness to take a further look at what you are now looking at and perhaps to give a ruling on it sometime in the future.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
[Volume:655;Page:4440] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members for raising what is a very serious point of order; I accept that absolutely. But I also make very clear that the Standing Order and the Speakers’ rulings that have been cited quite correctly are pretty clear on the matter: it is not for the Speaker to judge whether a matter is correctly or not correctly considered to be in the public interest. That is the sole prerogative of the Minister—in this case the Prime Minister—answering the question. I believe that the Standing Orders make it very clear that that is the way it should be and that it would be dangerous in my view for the Speaker to get into that territory. For that reason I am going to rule that in fact the existing Standing Order and the existing Speakers’ rulings cover the situation adequately. The argument about whether information exists is not relevant in my view because an answer may not involve specific information. The issue as to whether an answer is given may not involve specific information but relate to wider matters to do with the public interest. I think we cannot move away from the fundamental position that the decision as to whether a matter is in the public interest must remain with the Minister.
Parker David: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
Parker David: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
[Volume:655;Page:4440] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I would ask the Speaker to dwell on this issue and to give it the consideration that it deserves rather than making an instant ruling because my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson makes a very valid point—that is there must be some limit prescribed by you Mr Speaker in the conduct of the affairs of this House that stops the rules of this House from being abused by people claiming a public interest when there is not one. When there is a line issue as to whether there is a public interest it obviously behoves the Minister to make the call in accordance with the Standing Orders. When there is no information which is one of the possibilities here that cannot be cloaked behind a claim of public interest and where there is something that is being protected for plainly a private political interest rather than a public interest clearly that ought not to be defended by hiding behind that ruling either. So I ask you Mr Speaker to give consideration to that.
Power Simon: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
Power Simon: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
[Volume:655;Page:4440] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
 I shall speak very briefly. The member in referring to Speaker’s ruling 162/4 in his no doubt keenness to progress matters this afternoon omitted the last sentence of the ruling which states: “Nor is it a matter for the member asking the question to suggest that because that member considers the matter to be a matter of public interest the question should be answered in a particular way.” Mr Speaker I think that will assist you in your deliberation.
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
[Volume:655;Page:4440] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Mr Speaker can I just draw your attention to Speakers’ rulings 162/3-4. Speakers’ ruling 162/3 states: “an answer can be absolutely refused if in the opinion of the Minister interrogated the public interest would be imperilled …”. It does not define the public interest but if we look at Speaker’s ruling 162/4 we see that it makes it very clear. It states: “But ultimately the judgment of whether a particular reply is consistent with the public interest is for the Minister to make. It is not a matter for the Speaker to judge.” I think that deals with the point that the member has raised. The question of what constitutes the public interest is obviously one that in this instance the Prime Minister will have to defend in the public arena. But in terms of the Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders I would submit to you Mr Speaker that it is very clear what the position is.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
[Volume:655;Page:4440] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Speaking very briefly I disagree with my colleague opposite. As it applies in this particular case it goes to whether the Prime Minister was in fact invoking the public interest reason. Mr Speaker as I indicated to you yesterday although I think that you assumed that he did I do not think he did directly.
English Bill: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
English Bill: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
[Volume:655;Page:4440] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Although the member has tried to read a lot of things into the Standing Order and its usage the convention in this House consistent with the Standing Order is quite clear—that is the Minister answering the question is the arbiter of what is in the public interest. There is no obligation to explain or provide information in say the manner that the Official Information Act requires. I think any ruling would need to be consistent with that well-established precedent.
Hodgson Pete: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
Hodgson Pete: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Public Interest 
[Volume:655;Page:4439] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it under Standing Order 377(1) and it pertains to answers given by the Prime Minister to questions asked by me earlier this week. I seek your ruling and I imagine that you would wish to give a considered ruling. 
Standing Order 377(1) states: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” The Standing Order therefore has two parts. The first obliges the Minister to seek to address the question—and this part is already the subject of many Speakers’ rulings. The second part relieves the Minister of any such obligation if the Minister judges that addressing the question would not be consistent with the public interest. This too is the subject of many Speakers’ rulings and it is clear that the decision to invoke it rests with the Minister alone. What is not clear to me is whether the Minister is or is not bound to explain why he or she has invoked the public interest part of the Standing Order. Ordinarily it would be perfectly obvious and therefore uncontroversial. It may involve to quote Speaker’s ruling 162/4 “principles [such] as privacy commercial sensitivity or national security.” 
Earlier this week the Prime Minister repeatedly declined to address questions. He confirmed that that was because it was not in the public interest to do so. He further declined to say why it was not in the public interest. The Prime Minister then took matters a step further. He declined to tell the House whether he was in possession of any substantive information that is not yet public. He may be in possession of that substantive additional information or he may not. He declined to say. 
Therefore a possible disorderly situation arises. If the Prime Minister does have substantive information disclosure of which is not in the public interest I submit that he should be obliged to say that he has that information and to broadly characterise it—it affects the privacy of an individual is commercially sensitive involves national security or whatever. If on the other hand the Prime Minister has no such information then it follows with unfortunate certainty that he has invoked the second part of the Standing Order dishonestly which is of course disorderly. One cannot withhold information in the public interest if it does not exist in the first place. 
My submission is therefore that invoking the second part of the Standing Order obliges the Prime Minister to broadly say why. Failure to do so where it is not already obvious would allow a Minister to escape his or her obligation under the first part of the Standing Order by casually invoking the second.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:655;Page:4439] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
:  
As I understand it negotiations on issues such as the one that the member raises will proceed on a good-faith basis.
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
[Volume:655;Page:4439] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Can I ask the acting Leader of the House who does it very well whether in fact the Government intends as it progresses the climate change legislation to adopt the offer from Labour to facilitate that on the basis that certainty will be given to industry including the forestry industry through having fixed dates rather than Orders in Council?
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:655;Page:4439] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 23 June it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4); the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill if necessary; the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill which is set down for introduction today the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill; and other bills on the Order Paper. I am pleased that the Opposition has such an interest in these matters.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:655;Page:4439] 
Thursday 18 June 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 23 June it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4); the Parliamentary Service (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill if necessary; the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill which is set down for introduction today the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill; and other bills on the Order Paper. I am pleased that the Opposition has such an interest in these matters. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Can I ask the acting Leader of the House who does it very well whether in fact the Government intends as it progresses the climate change legislation to adopt the offer from Labour to facilitate that on the basis that certainty will be given to industry including the forestry industry through having fixed dates rather than Orders in Council? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
:  
As I understand it negotiations on issues such as the one that the member raises will proceed on a good-faith basis.
Macindoe Tim: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Macindoe Tim: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4010] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Shanks Katrina: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4046] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak on the third reading of the Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill this morning. It has been very interesting listening to the debate on this taxation bill over the last couple of days. It is not very often that we see most of the House voting the same way on a bill and that is what we are seeing today in the support of this bill. 
National is very very committed to reducing personal income taxes; over time we want to see them come down to 30 percent. But the time has to be right. The time is not right when we are in the middle of a recession when debt is increasing and when there are no surpluses. That is not the time to borrow money to give tax cuts. This Government has recognised that. We have had 9 long years of a Labour Government when we were in surplus and it was the ideal time to give many tax cuts to many New Zealanders to help keep them in New Zealand and to stimulate our economy. But the Labour Government did not take advantage of that. Now we are faced with a recession which we have known about for most probably a year. A recession is not a time to give personal tax cuts and it is not a time to borrow to do so; it is a time to be a responsible Government and make responsible decisions. 
The major pressures around some of these decisions on our debt were about New Zealand’s credit rating. As everybody knows it is important to keep a good solid credit rating if we want to keep our interest rates low. That is what this Government has been committed to doing. In fact we have saved New Zealanders nearly $600 million by keeping our credit rating at its current rate. It has been a hard decision for this Government to make but it has made it based on prioritising safeguarding entitlements improving public services and reducing our debt. That is how we have come to this decision. 
The Government believes in making the right decisions even though it may be hard to do it. We do not believe in “Visa-nomics”. We do not believe in putting it on the bill like “Whack-it-on-the-bill-Phil” does. We are a responsible Government that is making responsible decisions for all New Zealanders and we are trying to make the best out of the situation that we are in now. It is my pleasure to stand here and support this bill today. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Bill read a third time.