edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Points of Order — Question for Written Answer—Immigration 
Points of Order — Question for Written Answer—Immigration 
[Volume:628;Page:302] 
Points of Order 
Question for Written Answer—Immigration 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your ruling as to whether it is acceptable under the Standing Orders for the Minister of Immigration the Hon David Cunliffe to refuse to answer a series of written questions relating to the representations by the Hon Taito Phillip Field and other Labour members on immigration matters an issue in which there is a considerable level of public interest with the excuse given that: “I do not consider this a good use of my department’s time and resources.” 
 The Minister acknowledged that the information was held by his department but he did not consider it was worth providing it to this Parliament. I submit that that is tantamount to treating this Parliament with contempt and seek your clarification of Parliament’s requirements in respect of ministerial accountability. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I will look at it and get back to him once I have had an opportunity to do so.
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:449] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill — First Reading 
Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:449] 
Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Cullen Michael: Address in Reply—Presentation to Governor-General 
Cullen Michael: Address in Reply—Presentation to Governor-General 
[Volume:628;Page:448] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That Madam Speaker accompanied by the mover and the seconder and other members of the House do present the said Address to Her Excellency the Governor-General at a place and time to be appointed by Her Excellency 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Address in Reply—Presentation to Governor-General 
Address in Reply—Presentation to Governor-General 
[Volume:628;Page:448] 
Address in Reply—Presentation to Governor-General 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The address is as follows: 
Address from the House of Representatives 
to 
Her Excellency The Honourable Dame Silvia Cartwright Chancellor and Principal Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire Principal Companion of The Queen’s Service Order Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over New Zealand. 
Your Excellency— 
We the House of Representatives thank you for the speech addressed to us when you opened this Forty-eighth Parliament. 
We assure you that the matters referred to in your speech will receive our careful consideration. 
Ko te tumanako nei kia mahi tahi tatou katoa. 
Address adopted. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That Madam Speaker accompanied by the mover and the seconder and other members of the House do present the said Address to Her Excellency the Governor-General at a place and time to be appointed by Her Excellency 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Simich Clem: Address in Reply—Presentation to Governor-General 
Simich Clem: Address in Reply—Presentation to Governor-General 
[Volume:628;Page:448] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The address is as follows: 
Address from the House of Representatives 
to 
Her Excellency The Honourable Dame Silvia Cartwright Chancellor and Principal Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire Principal Companion of The Queen’s Service Order Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over New Zealand. 
Your Excellency— 
We the House of Representatives thank you for the speech addressed to us when you opened this Forty-eighth Parliament. 
We assure you that the matters referred to in your speech will receive our careful consideration. 
Ko te tumanako nei kia mahi tahi tatou katoa. 
Address adopted.
Vote: Address in Reply 
Vote: Address in Reply 
[Volume:628;Page:448] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the following words be added to the Address: and that it informs Her Excellency that this House has no confidence in the Labour - New Zealand First Government because it has no serious programme to secure rising incomes for all New Zealanders; because the Labour component of the Government has coasted over the last six years on the back of strong export prices and utterly failed to lay the foundations for reducing the gap between living standards on this side of the Tasman and those in Australia; because it fought a dishonest election campaign one that ransacked the public purse for irresponsible party purposes; because during that campaign it suppressed vital information about the financial consequences of its policies; and because it has trampled over all previous constitutional conventions in cobbling together a bizarre set of coalition arrangements that put personal ambitions well ahead of the national interest.” 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Address in Reply agreed to. 
"
Simich Clem: Address in Reply 
Simich Clem: Address in Reply 
[Volume:628;Page:443] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: New Zealand First has a split call of 5 minutes for each speaker.
Hartley Ann: Address in Reply 
Hartley Ann: Address in Reply 
[Volume:628;Page:406] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The matter cannot be dealt with by a point of order. If the member thinks that there is a matter that needs to be dealt with it can be dealt with by the Speaker as a matter of privilege.
Hartley Ann: Address in Reply 
Hartley Ann: Address in Reply 
[Volume:628;Page:406] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I would just remind all members again that a point of order was being heard. I cannot deal with points of order unless I can hear them and all the members on the Opposition benches were making a lot of noise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A personal explanation must contain only matters of fact. Mr Finlayson asserted something about my motives—that my decision was to do with his being a member of the National Party. It was not that; it was the fact that he was on a party list. The fact that it was the National Party list was irrelevant. The same criterion would have applied to somebody who was on the Labour Party list.
Cullen Michael: Address in Reply 
Cullen Michael: Address in Reply 
[Volume:628;Page:406] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is a very important point here. Matters of personal explanation cannot include assertions that are untrue. I did not decline Mr Finlayson because he is a National Party member; I declined him because he was on a party list just before an election. I determined that nobody on any party list should be appointed because if we had appointed a Labour Party person National Party members would have been the first to object and call it cronyism. [ 
Interruption 
]
Finlayson Christopher: Address in Reply 
Finlayson Christopher: Address in Reply 
[Volume:628;Page:405] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation pursuant to Standing Order 350 on a matter arising out of the Deputy Prime Minister’s vitriol. Earlier this year I received a phone call from the Solicitor-General inviting me to apply to take silk—that is to become a QC. Therefore I made an application along the lines of his suggestion. My name went forward along with a number of others to the Attorney-General as part of the appointments process and because I was a National Party person my application was turned down. The Deputy Prime Minister has suggested that I then wrote “an abusive letter to the Solicitor-General”. That is in fact incorrect. What I did was to return the Solicitor-General’s letter to him which was the letter in which he declined my application formally.
Paraone Pita: Address in Reply 
Paraone Pita: Address in Reply 
[Volume:628;Page:402] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 The 2005 election result has allowed New Zealand First to leverage significant gains for all New Zealanders. Given that that is our reason for being here I defy anyone here to take issue with our post-election position. Are we not all here to make New Zealand a better place? If not I suggest that those who have that contrary view move aside for a party that wants to be here for the right reasons. We have no doubts at all about what we are here to do so I tell others to watch and learn. 
I can sympathise with the National Party for being the bridesmaid for a third consecutive term. I can even understand why National members have this fixation about New Zealand First’s leader given that he has essentially been the real Leader of the Opposition for the past two parliamentary terms. Even in his absence National members seek him. Their fixation is merely a sign of a party that is I believe bereft of leadership and dare I say it policy. Having said that the reality is that within the National caucus are a number of members who believe that they should be the leader. Already the numbers game has begun. To the National members’ credit however they watched and learnt from New Zealand First members during the last term and they have been rewarded with a whole new group of back-benchers. National members are doomed to the Opposition benches for another 3 years and are resorting to name-calling out of sheer frustration at seeing a party with 5.8 percent of the vote and seven MPs that will achieve a lot more for New Zealand than they will with their so-called 39 percent of the vote and 48 seats. I can well understand their frustrations. As the Opposition benches seem to be engraved with the National Party logo for the foreseeable future I repeat my invitation to those members to learn from New Zealand First. Part of the lesson certainly will not include being allocated responsibilities because of the heritage of one’s spouse. 
I will touch on those things that New Zealand First has been able to gain for all New Zealanders: we have gained in policies relating to senior citizens the Treaty of Waitangi immigration and more police. Our economic policies will advance the economic situation of New Zealand. Even in the area of health we think that we have done well and good by our supporters. There are legislative proposals that we will certainly seek a review of particularly in terms of support for the reintroduction of the Electoral Integrity (Amendment) Bill. We will seek support for the bill relating to treaty principles going to a select committee for consideration and for a bill proposing to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years of age. I conclude by saying wow what baubles!
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:395] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is rather pointless. This question was transferred to the Prime Minister. It is not a question of somebody answering on behalf of the Coordinating Minister Race Relations; it was transferred. It was transferred as a request out of my office as Acting Prime Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the member want to speak to the point of order or ask the question? 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: I will ask the question.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:395] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just so Dr Sharples knows what is possible it might be worth your while advising him that he could seek leave for the question to be held over until such time as the Prime Minister is able to answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member certainly can seek such leave if he so wishes.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:395] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister who is responsible for answering the question is entirely a matter for the Government. The Government transferred that question to the Prime Minister.
Sharples Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sharples Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:395] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the question to the Coordinating Minister Race Relations. As she is in the House I ask why the question has been transferred.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:389] 
5.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What steps is the Government taking to promote the development of the venture capital market in New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The New Zealand Venture Investment Fund has been established to accelerate the development of the venture capital market. By doing so we hope to speed up the commercialisation of new research and innovation and turn that into successful business opportunities. The Government has also established the Seed Co-investment Fund which will directly invest up to $40 million over the next 5 years into early-stage firms to help them get off the ground. 
Maryan Street 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the success of the Venture Investment Fund? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The reports that I have seen indicate that after a relatively slow start it is now going very well. I am advised that for every dollar we have put into the Venture Investment Fund other sources have matched it two to one. The recommendations of an independent law and economics consulting group report support Government policy to stimulate the supply of venture capital in order to increase productivity and innovation in New Zealand.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:385] 
1. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How is the Government supporting innovation in New Zealand schools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Today I am announcing that the Government will invest a further $600000 to trial a further three innovative new programmes in schools. One project on the Coromandel involves videoconferencing to share teachers and lessons amongst 10 remote schools another in Nelson looks at disparities in achievement between boys and girls and a third in Christchurch will work to reduce underachievement and truancy rates. Through its investment in innovation in schools the Government is providing support to those schools that have new ideas that may help them to respond to specific needs in specific areas. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What is the Government doing to support innovation in schools through the use of information and communications technology? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government has invested more than $300 million in the last 5 years to transform schools into places where information and communications technology is at the heart of the learning. This year alone schools will receive $50 million specifically for information and communications technology over and above the $22 million provided as part of their operational grants. Every school in the country now has access to broadband 33000 teachers have new laptops more than 600 schools are involved in information and communications technology clusters and all schools now have access to free software anti-virus material and free web-based resources. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What innovative programme does the Government support to reduce underachievement? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government funds two high-profile communications campaigns involving TV radio and print media. Those are Team-Up and Te Mana. The Team-Up campaign is fronted by none other than All Black Captain Tana Umaga and is about motivating parents to take on new ideas and ways that they can support children’s learning. Along with the advertising campaign a website an 0800 number and classroom activity resources have been developed. The response to that programme and to Te Mana has been nothing short of fantastic. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is the Minister aware of the level of concern amongst schools at the additional compliance costs being generated by the raft of contestable funds such as the innovation funding introduced by this Government; if so will that matter be addressed in the forthcoming review of schools’ operational funding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes.
Beyer Georgina: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:518] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I am very proud to support the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) and I look forward to it coming before the Social Services Committee. 
As this is only a brief call I just have to express my disappointment I guess at the parties in this House that will not be supporting this bill even through this stage. Why does the National Party always seem to see the glass as being half empty? Why can those members not accept that an honest effort is being made here to enhance we hope at the end of the day the lives of the very children whom this bill is wanting to support and to make sure that those who are liable are indeed truly liable for what they do. 
A number of members of the select committee have spoken today and I can see that we will have a robust debate and a very interesting time during the hearing of submissions. We really look forward to it. This is a good bill to get our teeth into over the next wee while. I will certainly be there chairing that select committee and making sure we give the bill the best shot it can have. I support the bill.
Simich Clem: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Simich Clem: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:516] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: National’s next call is split into two 5-minute calls.
Chadwick Steve: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:516] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to take a very quick call on this bill. I am delighted to support it. I am surprised that all parties in the House do not support it. Members who have been electorate MPs would have been visited by desperate parents—either men or women but predominantly men—who simply could not afford to meet the penalties on their child support but were not saying that they did not want be responsible parents who pay their child support. This bill corrects that anomaly. It provides the right sticks and carrots for parents to be able to enter into a contract to pay their child support fairly but to be released from the burden of the penalties. I support this bill. It has been a long time coming. It will put things right and the money will flow to the children and that is what matters.
Kedgley Sue: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:515] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will support this bill going to the select committee. We will listen closely to the submissions to the committee and decide on our final vote depending on the outcome of the submissions process. 
We note that the liable-parent payment system was put in place to ensure that no parents could escape their responsibility to support their families financially. We need to remember that for many families the system has worked well and that for many struggling employed solo parents in particular the money they receive through the scheme is critical to their survival. But obviously for many it has not worked well at all. The fact that half of all liable parents are in arrears suggests really that we have to address a very very serious problem. We could put our heads in the sand jump up and down wring our hands about how irresponsible parents are and so on and so forth but we really have to try to address this particular problem and be more flexible in our approach to it. 
We particularly support the removal of the provisions for harsh penalties and we support the greater flexibility. Overall we think that the bill attempts to address positively a very serious problem in New Zealand so we are happy to support it going to the select committee.
Vote: Imprest Supply Debate — Third Reading 
Vote: Imprest Supply Debate — Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:502] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That all words after the word “That” be omitted and the following substituted: “the House declines to give a second reading to the bill because it has no confidence in this Labour minority Government since it has no conviction and purpose and is ignoring the economic challenges New Zealand faces; and calls on the Government to resign immediately.” 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Bill read a second time.
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply Debate — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply Debate — Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:485] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is my understanding that Mr Flavell will give his maiden speech as part of this debate. My colleague Mr Anderton has indicated that he will not take the 5-minute call that he is entitled to and I seek leave for Mr Flavell’s speech to be extended to 15 minutes which will bring it into line with other maiden speeches given in the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:481] 
9.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Information Technology 
: What is the Government doing to improve high-speed capacity broadband in New Zealand towns and cities? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister for Information Technology) 
: 
 On 1 November we launched a contestable $24 million Broadband Challenge fund. It will stimulate partnerships with the community and the private sector in order to provide very-high-speed open-access broadband to towns and cities around New Zealand and to extend the reach of broadband into underserved areas. 
Moana Mackey 
: What interest has been shown by communities in the Broadband Challenge fund? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It has been very pleasing. Yesterday I spoke at the Digital Cities and Regional Networks conference in Wellington which was attended by around 150 mayors local government officials community organisations and entrepreneurs. They were interested in taking advantage of the new fund and I expect that levels of interest in partnerships to lay open-access fibre around New Zealand will be high.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:479] 
7.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What initiatives has the Government put in place to improve case management in the Environment Court? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I have implemented several initiatives including a new case management regime extra judicial and administrative resources and contemporaneous digital evidence recording. There is also now a stand-alone Environment Court with three registries in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch devolved from a central registry based in Wellington. 
Steve Chadwick 
: How effective have those initiatives been? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Very effective. The court has dealt with a significant backlog of matters arising out of the notification of district plans throughout the early 1990s. The caseload in the Environment Court has been more than halved from 3137 cases at the end of June 2001 to 1566 cases as at June 2005. Hearings are now being held within 6 months generally compared with up to 24 months in 2001.
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:471] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I note that the Minister for Social Development and Employment the Hon David Benson-Pope is not here to answer the question today. I seek leave of the House to have the question held over until he is able to answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. Would the member please ask the question. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Will the Minister who will be answering on behalf of the Hon David Benson-Pope be offering his or her opinion or an answer on behalf of him as such? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a matter for the Speaker to deal with. The member of course has the option of not asking the question at this time if she so chooses.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:471] 
2.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What steps is the Government taking to promote New Zealand product exports to Asian markets? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The world’s first New Zealand concept centre New Zealand Focus has recently opened in Hong Kong. The centre operates out of a 6800-square-foot property in the heart of Causeway Bay Hong Kong. The centre is a great platform for New Zealand exporters to reach Hong Kong and Greater China markets. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Can the Minister enlighten the House on what New Zealand products and services are featured at New Zealand Focus? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The ground floor of the centre is home to a retail area showcasing New Zealand food beverages and natural health products. The mezzanine floor provides a showcase for New Zealand education and travel and the top floor offers an area for exhibitions business presentations functions and other promotional opportunities. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why has it been so hard to get space then? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I agree that some people who were being promoted by a back-bench member in his party were found not to be of suitable standard to go there but a company like Fisher and Paykel has a fully functioning kitchen to show off its products and it is a great opportunity to grow the $2.2 billion worth of exports we already make annually to China and Hong Kong.
Cullen Michael: Standing Orders—Sessional 
Cullen Michael: Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:628;Page:469] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave that bills introduced before 18 October 1999—the date of the dissolution of the forty-fifth Parliament—be set down for consideration of report following report back from select committees and that the same rules for the debate on the consideration of the report be followed as apply to the second reading of a bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I seek leave that the Clerk of the House of Representatives when reprinting bills at any stage during their passage through the House or when preparing them for the royal assent after consultation with the Chief Parliamentary Counsel or as the case may be the Commissioner of Inland Revenue may make amendments to bills currently before the House or its committees— 
so that they conform to the Standing Orders as amended on 8 September 1999 and 
to incorporate other changes relating to the format of legislation effective from 1 January 2000— 
but not so as to alter the meaning of the provisions of those bills. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I seek leave that members who are absent on official parliamentary travel funded by the Office of the Clerk be regarded as present within the precincts of Parliament for the purposes of casting party votes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I seek leave that the Abortion Supervisory Committee the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and Air New Zealand Ltd be public organisations for the purposes of the Standing Orders. Briefly just so perhaps new members understand this is so that they can be examined by select committees. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Finally I seek leave that in addition to the members able to comment on a ministerial statement under Standing Order 349 the leaders of each party with fewer than six members or a member authorised by the leader may comment on a ministerial statement for up to 2 minutes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:628;Page:469] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion at the Business Committee I seek leave for the following matters relating to the business of the House and select committees. I seek leave that the date by which the Finance and Expenditure Committee must finally report the annual financial statements of the Government for the year ended 30 June 2005 be extended to 31 March 2006. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:628;Page:469] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There are no coalition agreements that refer to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:628;Page:469] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of business and I ask him whether he expects the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill to pass because of coalition agreements or because of a general will in the House for that to happen.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:628;Page:469] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 6 December priority will be given to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) and the second readings of the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill and the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. Priority will also be given to first readings on the Order Paper. Wednesday of course will be a members’ day.
Standing Orders—Sessional 
Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:628;Page:469] 
Standing Orders—Sessional 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave that bills introduced before 18 October 1999—the date of the dissolution of the forty-fifth Parliament—be set down for consideration of report following report back from select committees and that the same rules for the debate on the consideration of the report be followed as apply to the second reading of a bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I seek leave that the Clerk of the House of Representatives when reprinting bills at any stage during their passage through the House or when preparing them for the royal assent after consultation with the Chief Parliamentary Counsel or as the case may be the Commissioner of Inland Revenue may make amendments to bills currently before the House or its committees— 
so that they conform to the Standing Orders as amended on 8 September 1999 and 
to incorporate other changes relating to the format of legislation effective from 1 January 2000— 
but not so as to alter the meaning of the provisions of those bills. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I seek leave that members who are absent on official parliamentary travel funded by the Office of the Clerk be regarded as present within the precincts of Parliament for the purposes of casting party votes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I seek leave that the Abortion Supervisory Committee the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and Air New Zealand Ltd be public organisations for the purposes of the Standing Orders. Briefly just so perhaps new members understand this is so that they can be examined by select committees. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Finally I seek leave that in addition to the members able to comment on a ministerial statement under Standing Order 349 the leaders of each party with fewer than six members or a member authorised by the leader may comment on a ministerial statement for up to 2 minutes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:628;Page:469] 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion at the Business Committee I seek leave for the following matters relating to the business of the House and select committees. I seek leave that the date by which the Finance and Expenditure Committee must finally report the annual financial statements of the Government for the year ended 30 June 2005 be extended to 31 March 2006. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:628;Page:469] 
Thursday 24 November 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 6 December priority will be given to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) and the second readings of the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill and the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. Priority will also be given to first readings on the Order Paper. Wednesday of course will be a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of business and I ask him whether he expects the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill to pass because of coalition agreements or because of a general will in the House for that to happen. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There are no coalition agreements that refer to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.
Simich Clem: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental  Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Simich Clem: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental  Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:595] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There will be a split call for National between Paula Bennett and Chris Tremain. There will be a first bell at 4 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental  Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental  Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:595] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. National wishes the next call to be a split call of 5 minutes each between Paula Bennett and Chris Tremain. I understand that there will be a bell at 4 minutes prior to the 5-minute bell.
Brown Peter: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental  Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental  Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:589] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not intend to take a long call because I think that the member who has just resumed her seat has explained in quite some detail the background behind this bill and how important it is. She made one mistake though: she described it as a step forward. New Zealand First would be a lot more positive than that; we would say that this bill is an essential requirement. It is essential for fairness alone. It was a sad fact that self-employed women were left out of the last bill. New Zealand First did not vote for the last bill for that reason. We thought the last bill was totally unfair. We supported the first bill. We support the concept of paid parental leave but we thought the last bill should have addressed this issue fairly comprehensively—a year ago was it? It is actually a sad reflection on the Government that it has taken 3 years to recognise self-employed women.  
There is a statement I want to read from the explanatory note of the bill. It is on page 12 if anybody is interested in two bullet points. It states: “self-employed parents face the same difficulties as employed parents in combining work with childcare:”. Did we not all know that? We did not have to have some sort of evaluation exercise to know that. The explanatory note goes on to state: “self-employed parents did not receive parental leave payments despite helping to fund the scheme through their tax payments.” That is absolutely true and it is a disgrace that this Parliament has not addressed that issue much much sooner. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: But we are now. 
PETER BROWN 
: The Government is now doing so—and I would not skite about it because although some very highly paid women in this country can get paid parental leave the small operator the self-employed woman gets nothing. She pays tax and gets nothing— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: But they will be able to get something. 
PETER BROWN 
: —and I say to honourable members that it is about time we addressed that issue. There is no obligation for employed people to go back to the job they came from. There is an obligation for the employer to hold the job open but there is no obligation for the employee to go back to that job. I almost guarantee that self-employed women will go back to the same job. They play a very positive and prominent part in our society.  
New Zealand First supports this bill. No doubt there will be glitches in it that will need to be tidied up by the select committee but we will support its referral to the select committee and we welcome its fast-tracking through the House simply to make the whole thing fair.
Cullen Michael: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental  Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental  Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:583] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Labour 
: I move  
That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time it will be moved that the bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee not of course because this is a transport issue but because it does relate very broadly to the industrial relations area.  
But now that I am on my feet and the oratorical opportunities have overcome me in this respect let me simply say that of course it has been the intention since paid parental leave was first introduced to extend it to self-employed people. It was recognised from the beginning that actually the most difficult part of paid parental leave is not so much how to define who is self-employed but how to define relevant earnings etc. It is much more difficult obviously for self-employed people than it is for those people who are employed. But clearly in terms of the original provision within the legislation there was a recognised inequity—that not to include self-employed people was a hole. An undertaking was given right from the beginning that that hole would be filled at a reasonably early opportunity.  
I might say that the National Party opposed paid parental leave. The most extraordinary sight was its women’s spokesperson who had availed herself of some significantly paid parental leave at the time actually opposing paid parental leave for the general workforce and everyone else. The primary purposes of that legislation were first of all to assist parents—particularly in the first stages of a baby’s life—and secondly particularly for women to provide the mechanism that enables the maintenance of a connection with the paid workforce. That clearly had worked overseas. It was the primary justification in many respects of the introduction of paid parental leave and I think the evidence since that time of increased female participation within the workforce has demonstrated that that has proved successful.  
I might say by the side of that that one should not go overboard. The United States in terms of its benefit system applies a work test to a parent when a baby is as young as 3-12 months. Ninety-odd percent of mothers who are not in employment are below the poverty line but appallingly 40 percent of sole parents who are in employment are also below the poverty line. That suggests that a much broader approach to these issues and a more generous one is actually appropriate. But I shall leave that to my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson to explain in more detail.
Cullen Michael: Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
Cullen Michael: Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
[Volume:628;Page:583] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move 
 That pursuant to section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 the following be appointed as members of the Parliamentary Service Commission: Tim Barnett Peter Brown Rodney Hide Keith Locke Tariana Turia Judy Turner and Lindsay Tisch. 
For those members not familiar with the Parliamentary Service Act it defines the membership as the Leader of the Opposition the Leader of the House or their nominees. Not everybody knows those important facts. These are statutory positions so I or my nominee who is Mr Burton do not have to be listed; nor does Dr Brash whose nominee is I think Mr Power or Mr Brownlee—I cannot remember. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: John Carter. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: John Carter—that is correct. But the other members then have to be nominated one for each party within Parliament. Those members are of course nominated by their own parties. By convention obviously Parliament does not interfere with each party’s own nomination. Theoretically one could but that in my view would be a gross misuse of any temporary passing majority within the House. The Parliamentary Service Commission does extremely important work. It is therefore crucial that the parties are all represented on it. 
Motion agreed to.
Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
[Volume:628;Page:583] 
Parliamentary Service Commission 
Membership 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move 
 That pursuant to section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 the following be appointed as members of the Parliamentary Service Commission: Tim Barnett Peter Brown Rodney Hide Keith Locke Tariana Turia Judy Turner and Lindsay Tisch. 
For those members not familiar with the Parliamentary Service Act it defines the membership as the Leader of the Opposition the Leader of the House or their nominees. Not everybody knows those important facts. These are statutory positions so I or my nominee who is Mr Burton do not have to be listed; nor does Dr Brash whose nominee is I think Mr Power or Mr Brownlee—I cannot remember. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: John Carter. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: John Carter—that is correct. But the other members then have to be nominated one for each party within Parliament. Those members are of course nominated by their own parties. By convention obviously Parliament does not interfere with each party’s own nomination. Theoretically one could but that in my view would be a gross misuse of any temporary passing majority within the House. The Parliamentary Service Commission does extremely important work. It is therefore crucial that the parties are all represented on it. 
Motion agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — Second Reading 
Yates Dianne: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — Second Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:582] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) as the previous chair of the Government Administration Committee. I thank all the members of that committee for the work they did on this bill because as Mr Tisch rightly pointed out this bill covers amendments to a number of Acts.  
Select committees are rather nervous about dealing with the breadth of legislation covered here and the scrutiny the Government Administration Committee gave these matters was considered. A number of officials came before the committee and in many cases we went back to Ministers to explain why the changes had to be made. We also know that there was cross-party consultation on these changes so Mr Tisch does make a very good point about the Supplementary Order Paper. No doubt when it comes before the Committee of the whole House it also will be scrutinised very carefully. 
Once again I thank the Government Administration Committee. It covers a wide range of legislation particularly in Statutes Amendment bills. It is very careful about small technical amendments; sometimes they end up being much larger than people may have anticipated. Once again I thank members of the committee for the scrutiny they gave this legislation. I also thank the officials who worked on the legislation. On some occasions we demanded quite a bit of the officials sending them back to answer many questions—so a big thanks to everybody involved.