edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7754] 
12.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What Government action has enabled several territorial local authorities to operate their airport infrastructure more effectively? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The Government has decided that two joint-venture airports Hawke’s Bay and New Plymouth will be given the option to corporatise if our council partners wish. The airports will remain in public hands and the company structure will provide clearer governance and enable the airports to borrow for investment if necessary. This paves the way for more active decision-making by the boards about these important community assets. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: How has the Government assisted the other joint-venture airports? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This is of great interest to many New Zealanders who live in provincial New Zealand. The remaining five airports in Whangarei Whakatane Taupo Wanganui and Westport will continue to be operated as joint-venture airports with more active Government involvement and assistance. This means we will have a better understanding of the issues in relation to each airport and what is needed from the Crown. The Government has appropriated almost $4 million to cover its share of historic losses and the necessary upgrades of infrastructure and facilities. This includes $227000 for a new terminal at Westport $526000 for resealing the runway at Wanganui and $1.1 million for the Taupo runway subject to final costs. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can the Minister confirm that the $803000 recently released for Wanganui Airport is just the Government share of past losses as a 50-50 partner and what guarantee is there that the Government will pay the estimated $470000 in back interest payments or does she expect Wanganui ratepayers to cover the cost of this Government not paying its bills as it expected the taxpayers of New Zealand to cover the $800000 election over-spend until it was shamed into its yet unfulfilled pledge to pay the money back? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is a very good question because that member might want to ask why a National Government set out to sell off the airports then set out not to honour the money that ought to have been put in. This Government has promised money to cover those historic losses and to work with those local authorities to ensure they can continue operating their airports.
Anderton Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Anderton Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7747] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Forestry) 
:  
I apologise to the House but I did indicate I would seek leave to table a graph of the internal rate of return of new forestry plantings. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7746] 
6.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: What reports if any has she received concerning funding for Family Wellbeing Services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 I have read a report that states: “Funding for Family Wellbeing Services vital in identifying and helping at risk families has been cut by $17 million in the past two years.” I would like to draw the attention of the House and the author of that report to three documents that are very very publicly available—the  
2005/2006 Non-Departmental Output Expense Report  
of Child Youth and Family and the Budget statements of 2005 and 2006. Pages 1 2 and 6 of the first report page 145 of the second report and pages 108 and 113 of the third report state that the alleged cut in funding was a transfer from Child Youth and Family to the Ministry of Social Development family and community services group. I recommend to the member Anne Tolley that she read the base documents before scaremongering in public. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Associate Minister received any reports on the outcome of increased funding for Child Youth and Family? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes as a matter of fact I have. Child Youth and Family is having a number of successes such as reducing the number of unallocated cases from 3000 in October 2004 to 435 in October of last year—all during a period of significantly rising notifications. I think all members should acknowledge this significant achievement although I would also note that responsibility for preventing child abuse rests with the whole community not just one Government agency. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table the Department of Child Youth and Family Services expenditure showing that in the year 2004-05 Family Wellbeing Services outcome was listed at $55 million and in the year 2006-07 the budget is $38 million—a cut of $17 million in Family Wellbeing Services. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7739] 
2.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Has he received any reports referring to the Venture Investment Fund? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Yes. I have seen one showing that investment in the Venture Investment Fund is clearly paying off. Kiwi science and innovation has received a US$35 million backing for anti-cancer drug company Proacta. This Labour-led Government set up the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund with exactly those sorts of goals in mind. We are committed to backing New Zealand innovation as part of our work to transform the New Zealand economy into one that is high-wage dynamic and export-led. I am somewhat surprised that the National Party has not yet congratulated the Government on this fund—one that it whinged about at the time. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister therefore inform the House what role the Government has had through the Venture Investment Fund in this company? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Government has through the fund made an investment of about NZ$4.5 million in it. The US$35 million is therefore very good leverage. More significantly if we had not been able to support the series A round Proacta would not have been able to set up in New Zealand as an independent company based on New Zealand research with continuing research and clinical trials here and with the continued involvement of the very good New Zealand science team based out of Auckland University in all stages of the drug’s development. The intellectual property would have left New Zealand. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well why are the scientists all leaving the CRIs? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The woodwork teacher from Christchurch is interjecting to say: “What about the CRIs?”. Actually Auckland University is not a Crown Research Institute. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was a gratuitous comment. The interjections do however lead to that level of disorder. Would the Minister please continue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Thank you Madam Speaker. I want to make it clear that the intellectual property developed at Auckland University—and Auckland University of course has a share of this company—would have left New Zealand rather than continue to be developed here— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Too little too late. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I know that that is the objective of some people who do not understand the difference between Auckland University and a Crown Research Institute. I hear the member saying: “Too little too late.” Why then did the Tories oppose the fund at the time?
Roy Eric: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7870] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I will take a call which will be quite a short one given the impending hour of the rising of the House. This legislation is another significant add-on to what is already quite a comprehensive Act—the Fisheries Act 1996. Some members who were not here in 1996 can reflect on the fact that that Act broke new ground in terms of sustainable harvest not only in New Zealand but internationally. If one goes back and looks at that 1996 Act one sees that—in what we might call the religious part right at the start which is purposes and principles—it contains enshrined elements of sustainability for the first time anywhere in the world. Therefore New Zealand’s 1996 Fisheries Act has been acknowledged in many places internationally as a very worthwhile standard for managing a wild resource in a sustainable way. 
Since that 1996 Fisheries Act was passed I do not think that there has been an Act of Parliament that has been amended more often than that Act. When the issue of fisheries comes up there is generally a glazing of the eyes for a significant number of members; I see some members nodding at me now. But in reality fishing is a very significant resource for New Zealand. It is a very important part of the New Zealand export economy and we need to clarify issues surrounding the question of how we might do it better. 
My colleague Phil Heatley spoke quite candidly about the areas of concern that National has. Yes we will support this bill’s going to the select committee. Yes we believe we need to err on the side of sustainability. But the bill does open another door—and I will make this claim: we will be back again to refine another element of it. I do not have a problem with that because this is a work in progress and we need to refine and improve on a consistent basis. 
I am a little perplexed by clause 5 which is going to bring some retrospective elements into this bill before we pass it. 
Debate interrupted.
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7869] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 We agree with the Minister that the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill needs due consideration. The National Party will certainly be supporting the bill going to select committee. The bill clarifies the law by providing a clearer direction to the Minister of Fisheries that where there is inadequate information on fish stock health it will take a cautious approach and set annual catch levels lower rather than higher. 
The Fisheries Act 1996 did in fact have the intention that the Minister would take a cautionary approach. Unfortunately in setting the total allowable catch the legislation states that the Minister will have regard to the purpose of the Act. Of course the purpose of the Act is to have utilisation of the fish stock alongside ensuring sustainability. Unfortunately when there is not enough information the Minister cannot necessarily err on the side of sustainability. He must still consider the purpose of providing for utilisation. 
This bill is intended to clarify where the balance lies between the utilisation of fish stocks and the sustainability of fisheries resources. The amended legislation will make it explicit that when information is absent or otherwise poor the Minister should take a precautionary approach to ensure sustainability of the fish stock for future generations—whether that be for commercial customary or recreational use. 
We know that the precautionary approach is in international agreements. Those agreements generally say that States shall apply the precautionary approach widely to conservation management and exportation of struggling fish stocks—that is the usual definition. 
National has some concerns of course. One of those concerns is how the Minister will sense what value or volume of information is sufficient so that he does not have to use the constraint of new section 10(c) inserted by clause 4 to consider sustainability—one can never be 100 percent sure about the fish stocks in terms of surveys. 
The second concern we have is how much further research will have to be done. What compliance and research costs will be borne by commercial fishers to avoid this new standard whereby the Minister will retreat to the precautionary approach? We are concerned that fishers may have to meet larger and larger compliance and research costs. We are interested to know how the Minister will sense what value or volume of information is required to avoid this particular clause. We will support this legislation to select committee. We do not have any commitment after that but look forward to submissions.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7868] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Field. 
Bill read a first time.
Burton Mark: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Burton Mark: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7856] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill be considered by the Maori Affairs Committee 
referred to Maori Affairs Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 June 2007 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Burton Mark: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Burton Mark: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7852] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I apologise to my colleagues for interrupting the flow of the debate but I am sure given some of the comments made earlier that members would not want to continue perpetuating inadvertently misleading the House. I therefore seek leave to table the list of 18 negotiations commenced since November 1999 when this Government took office. Eighteen mandates have been recognised two of which have actually had complete negotiations through to settlement. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Turner Judy: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7850] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. I need to say from the beginning that United Future does not enjoy representation on the select committee that will be hearing submissions on this bill so we will be looking for ongoing guidance and advice from committee members on this matter. We also understand that by the time a settlement bill reaches this House a lot of hard work has been done and a lot of negotiations have gone on for years and years involving some very remarkable people. We support and congratulate them on the efforts they have taken to bring us to this place. 
Firstly the bill identifies those who are able to identify themselves as Te Roroa today and historically. It is a final settlement of historical claims where those claims are breaches of the Treaty and breaches of common law. I think that many Pakeha people often fail to understand that these settlement claims are not just about breaches of the Treaty but they are also about breaches of common law as we understand it and that is why this process is so important. 
This settlement bill contains six acknowledgments by the Crown. Firstly the Crown acknowledges the failure to be responsive to historical complaints for generation after generation. Secondly in this bill the Crown acknowledges the poor process that led to the cession of land. Also it acknowledges the taking possession of land without having done a proper survey of it; the undermining of the collective ownership of iwi land; the reduction of land resources due to Crown action and Crown inaction that impoverished these people; and the separation of these people from wahi tapu and from their precious and sacred taonga. As well the bill sets out a formal apology from the Crown for breaches of the Treaty and it expresses the Crown’s desire to atone for this. 
What is interesting in this bill is the fact that it has some very forward-looking provisions that establish a process by which protocols can be established into the future to ensure a better interface between Government departments and the trustees of the Te Roroa Manua Whenua Trust. It sees 15 properties of cultural significance vested in the trustees of the trust and nine forest properties that are also of significance vested in the trust. 
Provisions are included to make sure that traditional cultural values are clearly defined and enshrined in an agreed upon set of principles that guide and constrain the management styles of the Waipoua Forest and two statutory reserves. This also includes a requirement to consult on consent applications. There are also as is common with settlement bills some place names that are either amended or assigned at the request of the people who bring this bill before us today. United Future is very happy to support the first reading of this bill and we look forward to its ongoing passage.
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7837] 
12.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues 
: Does she prefer the proposal of the political reference group or the One Auckland Plan of four Auckland metro Mayors of which she said: “I’m impressed with the proposal—one plan one voice and an agreed direction” to form the basis of legislation to develop Auckland? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues 
: Well I am certainly one of the Prime Minister’s little helpers on Auckland issues! The member kindly refers to the Minister’s press statement on 8 September 2006 which also said: “I support any move which helps Auckland to become an internationally competitive … city.” In December the four mayors along with the rest of the political reference group presented a different proposal. That proposal is now the one under consideration and discussion between the Government and Auckland leaders. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: When will the Government actually introduce legislation on Auckland regional governance—when? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: When the Government has finished its discussions with Auckland leaders and made its decisions. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Is the Government aware that unless it introduces legislation in the next 3 sitting weeks it will be actually too late to have effective reform for the next local body elections? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I remind the member that early this afternoon Mr Brownlee referred to a lack of work. This would suggest that there might be sufficient time to do lots of things before the next local body elections. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: If I interpret his answer as being that he can introduce legislation within the next 3 weeks does that mean that consultation with the public will occur only during a 1 or 2 month select committee process? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. In fact the political reference group’s proposals may or may not require legislation depending upon its final outcome. It certainly does not necessarily require legislation that will have to take effect before the next local body elections because that is not the nature of its proposals.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7835] 
9.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Transport Safety 
: What steps has the Government taken to ensure that New Zealand is prepared to introduce new aviation security measures in March this year? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 The Government has launched a major public awareness campaign called Flysmart to inform international airline travellers about the new security measures that will be introduced on 31 March. These measures will limit the amounts of liquids aerosols and gels that can be taken on board aircraft in carry-on baggage on international flights departing New Zealand. The Aviation Security Service is recruiting around 160 additional staff to implement these measures and has already begun training to ensure minimum disruption to the travelling public. 
Sue Moroney 
: What advice is the Government giving to the public to enable them to avoid delays? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Through the Flysmart campaign the Government is advising passengers about how to pack their carry-on baggage so that they will not be delayed at the airport. Information has already been provided to travel agents and airlines to pass on to customers and there will be plenty of signs at airports. The Government has also established the Flysmart website for international travellers. In the 2 weeks that the website has been live there have already been over 8000 hits on the website. People are interested. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister recall a few weeks back some I think Indian gentlemen boarding a relatively small commercial aircraft with ceremonial knives under their garments which made a number of passengers somewhat nervous thinking that perhaps the plane was about to be hijacked; and if he does recall that occurrence what will he do to ensure that it does not happen again? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: First I observe that the aircraft concerned was a medium-sized propeller aircraft with a range of somewhere in the order of 600 kilometres making it really not possible to hijack it to anywhere except maybe to the Chatham Islands on a good day if one was lucky. The security risk assessment means that we do not need to screen the aircraft; but secondly I observe that the pilot on the aircraft offered to look after the ceremonial knives on the flight deck to ensure that passengers could feel less anxious about their safety. 
I seek leave to table the Flysmart pack of information which illustrates for members what is permissible and not permissible on various flights. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I seek leave to table a pack of the typical sorts of items that members of Parliament might like to note are permissible on flights provided they are packed like this for carry-on baggage. 
Items tabled.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7831] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member interjecting is clearly confused that I am standing for the mayoralty of Rotorua. That rumour is about as real as that member standing for the Maori constituency on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That is not a point of order but it is useful at this stage perhaps to remind members that gratuitous personal comments that do not relate at all to the question or the answer do lead to disorder in the House so I ask members to restrain themselves please.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7821] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a copy of the Government’s legislative programme indicating there is very little coming out of select committees and that we will most likely be having to review the sitting hours for the year in order to avoid the Government looking very very embarrassed indeed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7821] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 He like me and like the rest of the House’s old trout will have to wait probably indefinitely for the passage of that particular legislation. The first reading I referred to is in the first week; I can assure the member there will be a range of other first readings to consider. There is also a very considerable amount of material before the select committees which is due to come back to the House in the not very distant future. However I am grateful to the member for his continued cooperation in the way the House now processes legislation—quite quickly and very effectively.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7821] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for the information but may I say the worry would obviously have to continue for him that his Government is going to run out of work with the announcement that it has only one first reading planned for the entire 4-week session when we get back. I am wondering whether he might indicate to the House how soon we will get to the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill. We have speakers who have been waiting for some 9 years to add a contribution on that bill. We commend the Minister for his management of the House if it means the bill will finally come before us.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7821] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House goes into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 13 March priority will be given to the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill which is a 4-hour debate; the remaining stages of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill and the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2); and the first reading of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7821] 
Thursday 1 March 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 adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 13 March priority will be given to the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill which is a 4-hour debate; the remaining stages of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill and the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2); and the first reading of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for the information but may I say the worry would obviously have to continue for him that his Government is going to run out of work with the announcement that it has only one first reading planned for the entire 4-week session when we get back. I am wondering whether he might indicate to the House how soon we will get to the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill. We have speakers who have been waiting for some 9 years to add a contribution on that bill. We commend the Minister for his management of the House if it means the bill will finally come before us. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 He like me and like the rest of the House’s old trout will have to wait probably indefinitely for the passage of that particular legislation. The first reading I referred to is in the first week; I can assure the member there will be a range of other first readings to consider. There is also a very considerable amount of material before the select committees which is due to come back to the House in the not very distant future. However I am grateful to the member for his continued cooperation in the way the House now processes legislation—quite quickly and very effectively. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a copy of the Government’s legislative programme indicating there is very little coming out of select committees and that we will most likely be having to review the sitting hours for the year in order to avoid the Government looking very very embarrassed indeed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Borrows Chester: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8034] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 In speaking to clause 2A which confirms that this Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill is an amendment to the Crimes Act I believe we need to have a think about why we are amending that Act. It is obvious; it is because an assault comes under the Crimes Act. In fact if the Chair recalls learning verbatim the definition of assault under section 2 of the Crimes Act he will be able to confirm that “Assault means the act of intentionally applying … force to the person of another directly or indirectly or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another if the person making the threat has or causes the other to believe … that he has present ability …” to do so. 
So what has been found to be an assault? Well what has been found to be an assault is contact as light as a kiss and goes on a continuum all the way through to bashing someone around the ears with a lump of wood. That is about the state of it. So the argument around this legislation and this amendment concerns whereabouts on that continuum we start or stop. The point was made earlier that Sue Bradford’s bill provides a defence for parents who use reasonable force to control their children. But my amendment provides a defence for people who use reasonable force for the purposes of correction to raise their children. There is only a gap between us; it is not very wide. 
Let us have a little think about when the changes to the bill came up because initially of course the only thing that was before the House and before the Justice and Electoral Committee was repeal of section 59—to take it away completely. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Cullen Michael: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8030] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member can adopt a date that is certain in that respect with a specific date such as say 15 November—which of course is the other form of the date of commencement where an actual specific certain date is given. The Clerk of the House has no choice but to present a fair copy. That must be done. I think it is now reasonable constitutional law that when that is being presented to the Governor-General the Royal assent must be given. These events must occur and therefore the event will happen. It is a certain event. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members for that. I am persuaded by the argument from Dr Cullen which is an argument that has been made before on very similar issues. The statement I made that the amendment was out of order is quite correct. An amendment to a commencement date must provide certainty. For the reasons that have been outlined those amendments did not do that. We will move on now to the much-awaited clause 2A.
Williamson Maurice: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8029] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Dr Cullen refers to Standing Order 311 which states: “When a bill has been passed it is printed fair by direction of the Clerk who authenticates two prints of it and presents them for the Royal assent.” I do not understand how that has any overriding effect on the Standing Order that I read out which states that a bill must have a clause in it that states clearly when its coming into effect will be. I would have thought that there is a degree of certainty that there will be a Royal assent at some stage afterwards. My amendments are stating that there is a degree of certainty—that we are asking members of Parliament to sign a statutory declaration. I simply do not understand why those two events are different. Certainly the Standing Order that Dr Cullen referred to does not actually refer to that.
Cullen Michael: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8029] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson perhaps to begin with I could refer you to Standing Order 311 “Bills passed to be printed fair authenticated and presented for Royal assent” which states: “When a bill has been passed it is printed fair by direction of the Clerk who authenticates two prints of it and presents them for the Royal assent.” Of course one could argue that the Royal assent may not be forthcoming but as the Royal veto has not been exercised since 1707 and is regarded by most constitutional historians and lawyers as now defunct the Royal assent may be regarded as something that follows automatically from the provision of the fair copies presented by the Clerk of the House. A commencement date that is contingent upon another member—or indeed upon anybody else—doing something that that person may or may not do whether or not that person does it is no indication of what that person actually means by his or her action or inaction and is a totally indeterminate event. It is precisely the kind of matter that was the subject of the Speaker’s ruling in October last year. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the members for that.
Williamson Maurice: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8029] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just ask you to explain a little about the amendments in my name that you have ruled out. I am looking especially at Standing Order 257(1). It quite clearly states: “A bill must include a distinct clause stating when the bill comes into force.” If the clause stays the way that it is it states that it will come into force on the day after it receives the Royal assent. Well the Royal assent date is an indeterminate date. We do not know when that will be. Maybe the Governor-General is not around for some weeks; he may be overseas. I want to know how it is acceptable for it to be an indeterminate date such as when it receives the Royal assent—that is acceptable—but the Standing Order quite clearly states that a bill must include a distinct clause stating when the bill comes into force. My amendments state—especially the first four which relate to individual members—that it should be after that day and after they have signed the statutory declaration stating they personally support the way that the vote was cast in their name. I cannot understand why that date which would be some date after the legislation has passed through is in any way less determinate or more determinate than that of the date it receives the Royal assent.
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8029] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 2 (Donnelly Woolerton); Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 5 (Brown Mark Paraone Peters Stewart); United Future 2 (Copeland Turner); ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8028] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Taito Phillip Field to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “on the day” and substitute the words “one month”.
Copeland Gordon: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8028] 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I have had advice from the Clerk’s Office in relation to Judy Turner’s Supplementary Order Paper 95 and I seek leave that the vote on this Supplementary Order Paper be taken as a single vote. I have checked out that matter with the other whips so I seek leave accordingly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 95 in the name of Judy Turner to clause 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8028] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Motion agreed to.
Turei Metiria: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8028] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Guy Nathan: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8027] 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wish to raise it under Standing Order 137(3): “The Speaker may accept a closure motion if in the Speaker’s opinion it is reasonable to do so.” This is an extremely contentious bill this evening. We have a lot of speakers wishing to speak on the commencement clause of this bill and I urge you to let the debate carry on. 
Darren Hughes 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not think I need any assistance. We have had 22 speakers some of them relevant to the clause but Jacqui Dean has not spoken on this clause.
Hughes Darren: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8026] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pillay Lynne: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8025] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 That was absolutely appalling. I am really pleased to take this call on the commencement date. It is time that the law was changed. There is so much misinformation out there and I want to talk about that. That member sitting on the other side of the Chamber was skiting about how many times she smacked her kid—good for her! But she is misleading people. What is the law about? It is about parents using a defence when they are prosecuted for using implements such as riding crops—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes it is. Those members are telling whoppers. Chester Borrows is hanging his head in shame. He is so embarrassed. 
I will tell members something. This bill is not about introducing a prosecution; it is about removing a defence in cases when children are beaten. Chester Borrows was very very concerned about that in the select committee. Very few members on that side of the Chamber sat and heard the submissions from Plunket Barnardos and Every Child Counts as well as a petition from 20000 people. That is all discounted. To them it is all about the right to smack their children. I have to say that the media has aided and abetted them in that. That is not the debate. The debate is about people who hit their children with riding crops who are prosecuted and who get off. That is what it is about. That woman— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Please come back to clause 2. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am sorry Mr Chairman. I am not showing the same discipline as members on the other side. 
All I can say in closing is that this bill is long overdue. The commencement date is appropriate. Members on the other side of the Chamber have talked about the SKIP programme. Education is great. The commencement of this bill will mean that it reinforces that education; it follows it. The parents I speak to say: “Look all this scaremongering where are the Nats coming from?”. They said: “I feel really sorry because Paula Bennett has been talking to us and she doesn’t want to vote for Chester’s amendment but she’s in a terrible position.” So the commencement date is very important and that is why I think the commencement of the bill should occur as stated in the bill. Thank you Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Members do not seem to have taken too much notice of the comments I made previously. I really will be insisting that contributions be relevant to this clause otherwise I shall terminate them.
Simich Clem: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8024] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I call the next speaker I say that although I have been in the Chair for only a short while the contributions made since I have been here do not seem to be very relevant to this clause. There may have been some other understanding previously—I do not know. Please make speeches relevant to clause 2.
Pettis Jill: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8015] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I suggest humbly to the member that when I shout most people know. I was not shouting at the member at all. He reminds me of the senior clergyman— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I am sorry. That is not a point of order. Please be seated. I was tolerant of the member’s points of order. There has been a lot of interjection tonight. 
Rodney Hide 
: All right I’ll interject on you too. Is that what you are saying is OK? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I warn the member. I am trying to say to him that there has been a lot of interjection tonight. I have not pulled up everyone consistently but if that is what the member wants I will do it. 
Rodney Hide 
: I just want to know what the rules are. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We will apply them across everyone.
Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8015] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Jill Pettis continued to do that across the Chamber while you were speaking to me again. Again I make the point that if I open my mouth or even look as though I am going to you throw me out. What is it? Are Labour MPs allowed to do what they like?
Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8015] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do not know how this works but Jill Pettis—I am not sure whether she wants to take a call—yelled out some incomprehensible statement to me while you were talking. That meant I could not hear what you were saying. I do not understand how a Labour MP can sit there yelling out across the Chamber while the person in the Chair is trying to give an instruction. I do not understand why she does not get disciplined but if I say peep I am out of here. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take the member’s point.
Chauvel Charles: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8013] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to speak briefly on the commencement date of the legislation but before I do I would just like to turn to a point made by a couple of earlier speakers and that is the supposed enormous level of opposition in the Pacific community to this legislation. Some of us who are young and of the Pacific know a large number of Pacific families who have opted out of violence and deliberately refrained from practices of the previous generation. We have decided not to perpetuate the cycle of violence. There are many people in that category and I hope that I am thought to be one of them. It is patronising and a bit sickening to hear speaker after speaker talk about how the Pacific community—this mythical monolith—is opposed to this legislation. That is not so. There is a generation of young Pacific people in this country who are achievers and who are very proud of the fact that we have broken cycles of abuse and poverty. This sort of legislation is what we support. Let it not be said that there is a monolithic Pacific community against this legislation—that is a myth. 
In turning to the commencement of this legislation I want to speak in particular to Judy Turner’s amendment which I oppose for many of the reasons that were articulated by previous speakers including Sue Bradford and Chester Borrows. 
 Fifty percent is the normal vote by which this House passes legislation. The only exception that we make on a precedent basis is for electoral law which is for good and proper reasons. None of those reasons are applicable in this case. Similar logic applies to the notion that there ought to be a referendum over the coming into force of this legislation. Referenda are largely foreign to our system except in the case of citizens initiated referenda. According to the proper procedure no citizens initiated referenda has been called for in this case. It ought to be the case if that is the route that proponents of this measure want to go down. They should go down the proper channels and call for a referendum in the recognised way. 
As I have said referenda are foreign to our system. This is a House of Representatives and all MPs are paid good money to come and exercise their votes in this House. It is wrong when a tough issue suddenly comes up and MPs seek to abrogate that responsibility and push it back on to the people who pay us to do our jobs. We ought to do our jobs. We ought to get on and vote on this legislation—and certainly vote for it. Thank you Madam Chair.