edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Points of Order — Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Points of Order — Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:642;Page:12078] 
Points of Order 
Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I seek leave for the introduction of the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is this bill in the name of the member? Because of course if it is it becomes a Government bill as the member is a Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Question time resumed.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:642;Page:12071] 
Thursday 20 September 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes after the 2-week adjournment on Tuesday 9 October priority will be given to the third readings of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill the Arbitration Amendment Bill and the Succession (Homicide) Bill; the first reading of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) which will be ready by that point and the remaining stages of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill and the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Given the announcements made by the Government today around New Zealand’s response to climate change when will we expect to see the emissions trading scheme legislation brought to the House—in the next sitting or the one after? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think we can be very confident that the drafting will not be done by the next sitting of Parliament. The intention is to introduce the bill obviously before Christmas. It will be clearly a very complex bill.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12062] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2A be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2A agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12062] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Turia Tariana: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Turia Tariana: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12061] 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chairperson. I think that the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is critically important for families. I am sure that most political parties in this House totally support the right of families to have flexible working hours and if they do not then I think the question probably is why not? 
The date for the legislation to come into force is 1 July 2008. That really will give employers and employees time to familiarise themselves with the legislation and will enable employers to perhaps give considerable thought to how they might assist their employees to have flexible arrangements. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Close down. 
TARIANA TURIA 
: No I do not think that people need to close down because there are already employers who have been more than willing to have flexible arrangements. They have had increased productivity as a result of doing that and we support that. 
 One of the issues we want to raise tonight is the definition of a child whom one can take flexible working hours to care for. We support Minister Dyson’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 148 for that reason. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is in clause 6A. 
TARIANA TURIA 
: Sorry Madam Chairperson is that in clause 6A? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is in clause 6A. 
TARIANA TURIA 
: So I am not allowed to talk about that now? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. It is coming up; it is the major part of the debate. 
TARIANA TURIA 
: OK. Well I think the great thing about the legislation is that it promotes flexible working hours. I can speak about this issue because I was a young mother who had to go to work and I could not get flexible working hours. I know when I think back to having to leave my children and go to work that maybe they suffered because of the long hours I had to work as a young mother. 
But the commencement date is important I believe because of the change that has been made to the day the legislation will come into force. It will now be 1 July 2008. Thank you Madam Chairperson.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12059] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Harawira Hone: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Harawira Hone: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12058] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chair. Tena tatou katoa i te Whare. 
Paula Bennett 
: Kia ora. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Kia ora Paula. I support the proposal to change the title of the bill from Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill to Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. I would like to ask whether it is possible to backdate the bill to just before I went up to Alice Springs so that my working conditions and the location of my work could be moved from being in this House and I could continue with my parliamentary activities in Alice Springs. As an indigenous member of Parliament for Te Tai Tokerau I was doing my best to understand the needs of the indigenous people of the Northern Territory. I think that flexible working arrangements might also be a good idea to ensure that certain other members of this House can spend a lot more time at home and not bother us in this Chamber. 
Flexible working arrangements are something I myself have been very keen on in the last 20 years. Although I heard Mr Mapp talking about how they will mean death and destruction for businesses I know from experience that arrangements allowing people to work in a location that improves their productivity is good for the business. It has been good for business when freely negotiated with the employer and freely agreed upon by the employer. I know from experience that it works. 
I just want to say that flexible working arrangements are a step up from flexible working hours. They encourage people to give more to the businesses for which they work if they can see that the businesses are willing to give back. Whoever suggested that the title be changed from flexible working hours to flexible working arrangements must have been somebody incredibly intelligent. It must have been one of the two members here next to me Pita Sharples or Tariana Turia. It is a very good idea and will enhance the purpose of the bill. Thank you Madam Chair.
Kedgley Sue: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12057] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I seek to speak briefly goaded by the previous speaker Wayne Mapp. First I would like to say that the reason that we have changed the title of the bill from Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill to Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is so that we can accommodate people’s requests to change if they so wish the location as well as the hours and time of their work. That is the reason why we have sought to change the title of the bill and it is very simple. 
It is extraordinary that the previous speaker said this legislation is using State power to force people into an arrangement they do not want. This is arguably the most light-handed legislation to come before the House in recent years. All that it provides for is the right to request—the right to request—flexible working arrangements. And it is very fair legislation because not only does it give employees the right to make requests but it protects employers as well. Far from forcing employers to accept requests it gives them seven or eight grounds to decline them. 
The other point I would like to make briefly is that it is extraordinary that the National Party in New Zealand is opposing this most light-handed legislation when its equivalent party the Conservative Party in England is one of the leading proponents of flexible working arrangements legislation. The member Kate Wilkinson is shaking her head but I would like to quote briefly from David Cameron the leader of the Conservative Party in England— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: You are not speaking to the title. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Well I was just rebutting the comments from the previous speaker. I will quote from David Cameron later when we come to discuss the substance of the bill. But I say it is extraordinary that the Conservative Party in England embraces such legislation and sees it as a way a tool of modernising work places of helping families to balance the competing demands of paid work and families—that party is embracing such legislation—and the National Party here in New Zealand is opposing something as simple as the right to request flexible working arrangements. We have heard a lot from the National Party about how it is family-friendly and is supporting children yet it cannot even bring itself to support this bill. Really that is extraordinary. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There is plenty of opportunity to discuss the substance of the bill. At the moment we are trying to keep to a debate on the title.
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12054] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand and take a call in the Committee stage of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill in relation to clause 1 which of course is the title. The title to this bill has changed. It was originally the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. It has been expanded to deal with flexible working arrangements. Those arrangements are also defined further on in the bill. In relation to an employee—not interestingly enough in relation to an employer as well; it is only in relation to an employee—those flexible working arrangements mean flexibility either in terms of hours of work the days of work or the place of work at for example the employee’s home or place of work. 
Flexibility which is really the integral part of this bill is important. Flexibility in the workplace is important and National acknowledges that. We acknowledge that in order for employees to be successful they need flexibility in their working arrangements. But that does not mean that this needs to be legislated for and we believe that common sense can prevail. 
This bill the title of which has changed is as has been referred to in relation to other bills a solution looking for a problem— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but we are debating clause 1. It is very limited; it is just the title. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: The title—correct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I appreciate that Madam Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is a very limited debate. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: It is a very limited debate. The title is really about the flexibility of those working arrangements. We believe in flexibility and although we accept the title of the bill we do not believe that flexible working arrangements should be or indeed can be legislated for.
Simich Clem: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — First Reading 
Simich Clem: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12051] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next speaker I say this debate on the first reading comprises six 10-minute speeches. This is the last call and by agreement it will be split between 5 minutes to Dr Worth and 5 minutes to David Cunliffe.
Simich Clem: Speaker’s Statements — Microphones in Chamber—Fault 
Simich Clem: Speaker’s Statements — Microphones in Chamber—Fault 
[Volume:642;Page:12043] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call Dr Mapp I report back to the House and thank Mr Henare for raising the issue about sound. The matter was being actioned before the member even sat down. I hope it is better now. Members are entitled to hear proceedings as they go on but I would also ask members to speak as closely as they can to the microphone and into a line with the microphone. That would help members. If there is a little less talking going on that may also help. I thank Mr Henare for raising the issue.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12041] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time.
Simich Clem: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12041] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to hear that. If I had been aware of it earlier I would have. It will be looked into immediately. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is not a flippant point of order. I honestly could not hear and there was not a lot of noise in the Chamber. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No but it is becoming flippant by you simply saying that it is not a flippant point of order. I realise it is not I did not take it as such and the process is under way. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is all we need to hear from you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is all you are going to hear and you will keep quiet now. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Thank you very much. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Do not make a habit of that Mr Tau Henare—all right? Good.
Henare Tau: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Second Reading 
Henare Tau: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12041] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could send a message to the people in charge of the speaker system because I did not hear most of the speech made by the member who has just resumed her seat. I wonder whether you could get somebody to turn the speakers up.
Collins Judith: General Debate 
Collins Judith: General Debate 
[Volume:642;Page:12016] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I seek leave to table “Dangerous time for Govt” from the  
Nelson Mail. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I seek leave to table John Armstrong’s article “Changing the beds in Labour’s retirement village”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I seek leave to table Bill Ralston’s article “Half-witted ministers a curse”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I seek leave to table the political obituary “The prime of Helen Clark”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Dalziel Lianne: General Debate 
Dalziel Lianne: General Debate 
[Volume:642;Page:12016] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an article called “The Ministry of Wimmin’s Affairs—Time to Go?” which was written by one Judith Collins. It describes the Ministry of Women’s Affairs as a bunch of— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:12002] 
10.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on the reduction in health inequalities under a Labour-led Government? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I launched the  
Tracking Disparity 
 research last month. The research showed that although inequality in health outcomes between ethnic groups and across income brackets grew steeply in the late 1980s and right through the 1990s it appears that those gaps may have stopped growing and may have even started to narrow. We can celebrate this early sign of success and acknowledge those who work in the health system to deliver it but the disparities are still large and they are still unacceptable.
Donnelly Brian: Motions — Lions Club of New Zealand Parliament—Lions District 202H  Wellington Project Award 
Donnelly Brian: Motions — Lions Club of New Zealand Parliament—Lions District 202H  Wellington Project Award 
[Volume:642;Page:11987] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That this House notes the achievement of the Lions Club of New Zealand Parliament the activities of which are supported by Lions Club members and non-members from all parties in the House on being presented with the Lions District 202H Wellington Project Award for spearheading the initiative to establish a new playground at Wellington Children’s Hospital which opened in October 2006 at a final cost of $100000. 
Motion agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — Discharge 
Wilson Margaret: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — Discharge 
[Volume:642;Page:11987] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I hereby inform the House that I have received advice from the Palmerston North City Council the promoter of the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill that it is withdrawing the bill pursuant to Standing Order 274. The bill is consequently discharged from further consideration by this House.
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Neil Joseph Morrison 
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Neil Joseph Morrison 
[Volume:642;Page:11987] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death this morning of Neil Joseph Morrison who represented the electorate of Pakuranga from 1984 to 1987. I desire on behalf of this House to express the sense of loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Speaker’s Statements — Microphones in Chamber—Fault 
Speaker’s Statements — Microphones in Chamber—Fault 
[Volume:642;Page:12043] 
Speaker’s Statements 
Microphones in Chamber—Fault 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call Dr Mapp I report back to the House and thank Mr Henare for raising the issue about sound. The matter was being actioned before the member even sat down. I hope it is better now. Members are entitled to hear proceedings as they go on but I would also ask members to speak as closely as they can to the microphone and into a line with the microphone. That would help members. If there is a little less talking going on that may also help. I thank Mr Henare for raising the issue.
Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — Discharge 
Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — Discharge 
[Volume:642;Page:11987] 
Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill 
Discharge 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I hereby inform the House that I have received advice from the Palmerston North City Council the promoter of the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill that it is withdrawing the bill pursuant to Standing Order 274. The bill is consequently discharged from further consideration by this House.
Motions — Lions Club of New Zealand Parliament—Lions District 202H  Wellington Project Award 
Motions — Lions Club of New Zealand Parliament—Lions District 202H  Wellington Project Award 
[Volume:642;Page:11987] 
Motions 
Lions Club of New Zealand Parliament—Lions District 202H  Wellington Project Award 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That this House notes the achievement of the Lions Club of New Zealand Parliament the activities of which are supported by Lions Club members and non-members from all parties in the House on being presented with the Lions District 202H Wellington Project Award for spearheading the initiative to establish a new playground at Wellington Children’s Hospital which opened in October 2006 at a final cost of $100000. 
Motion agreed to.
Obituaries — Neil Joseph Morrison 
Obituaries — Neil Joseph Morrison 
[Volume:642;Page:11987] 
Wednesday 19 September 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Neil Joseph Morrison 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death this morning of Neil Joseph Morrison who represented the electorate of Pakuranga from 1984 to 1987. I desire on behalf of this House to express the sense of loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Wagner Nicky: Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8732] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to debate the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. I assure Barbara Stewart that National supports the idea of concessions and of a discount card for senior citizens. We all appreciate the contribution our older people have made for us. But I want to make sure that senior citizens understand clearly the very limited scope of this bill. It is only a technical amendment that does not actually guarantee the delivery of any services at all. 
The bill reminds me of the fairy tale  
The Emperor’s New Clothes 
. Members will remember the story. It is about an emperor—a gorgeous peacock of a man who loved clothes and all that was glittery and gaudy. He loved and wore shiny fashions jewels and baubles. Members will remember in the story that he bought a wonderful new super gold suit of which he was enormously proud. But that suit proved to be a mere illusion. Alas when the poor emperor was out parading in front of his people a little boy pointed the finger at the sham and the poor emperor discovered he was stark naked. 
Today I am really concerned that the Minister of Foreign Affairs might just find himself equally as naked and exposed. You see the Minister has made lots of lovely promises today just as he did at the first reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill when he said that it will create a card that will offer a range of concessions and discounts from central government local authorities and businesses. 
We support rewarding our elderly people but the problem is that this bill will not do that. All it will do is set the rules to allow a card—any card—to be issued by the Government. This bill amends the Social Security Act 1964 so that the Government can issue a card that includes a photo and a microchip. 
Debate interrupted.
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Question Time—Withdrawal of Members 
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Question Time—Withdrawal of Members 
[Volume:638;Page:8721] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This matter is viewed very seriously by members on the Opposition side of the House. Matters of impartiality on the part of the Speaker and on the part of every presiding officer in this House are taken extremely seriously particularly in the climate we find ourselves in at the present time. I would ask for the Speaker to give reflection to this matter and to consider giving a written ruling on the matter. Specifically in relation to that written ruling I would request that consideration be given for an apology to be made to those members who have every right to take offence at the impression left by the Speaker this afternoon. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have suggested to the member that it is a matter for a notice of motion from the member. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am happy to oblige. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising the matter. We will move on.
Tanczos Nandor: Points of Order — Question Time—Withdrawal of Members 
Tanczos Nandor: Points of Order — Question Time—Withdrawal of Members 
[Volume:638;Page:8720] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 As well as concurring with the point just made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters I would also make the point that my understanding was that the matter was left at a point where it was accepted that there had not been any dishonourable intent to deceive. I understood that the point had been made that perhaps it was an inadvertent— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his assistance.
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Question Time—Withdrawal of Members 
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Question Time—Withdrawal of Members 
[Volume:638;Page:8721] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 There is a longstanding tradition in this Chamber that if a member takes offence then usually an apology is required of the person who has caused offence. In this case I have a very clear recollection of events. I am relying not just on the tape but also on my own recollection. I disputed this matter with the Speaker at the time and it is quite clear that my recollection is correct. The Speaker’s recollection of events was wrong. No intervention was made until after Mr Brownlee’s point of order had finished. I want to make it clear that I take offence at the comments made by the Speaker. I feel I am owed an apology and I believe that every member on the Opposition side of the House is owed an apology. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point of order. It was actually out of order in that I think in some way the member was criticising the Speaker. The matter was dealt with at the time and that really is the end of the matter as far as dealing with that issue goes. 
The member has said that the impression may have been created that there was some dishonesty on the part of members on the Opposition side of the House. That is why I let him continue with his point. It was so that the member had the opportunity to clear up that impression that may have been created—assuming that the same people are listening at this hour as were listening at the other hour. 
So I thank the member for raising the matter but it was dealt with by the Speaker. If the member wants to take it further it is a matter for a notice of motion.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Question Time—Withdrawal of Members 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Question Time—Withdrawal of Members 
[Volume:638;Page:8720] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The problem with that point of order is that it is not possible to discern by listening to the tape whether an intervention or interjection was made while Mr Brownlee was on his feet. This is not a television monitoring office at some sort of rugby league game or rugby game. The point of order sounds fair and logical until one comes to the probative value of the evidence that Mr McCully has sought to hear. He said that he did not see it but I am sure he meant that he did not hear any interjection. Unfortunately the tape of Parliament would not disclose that. Anybody who has been here for a while would understand that to be the case. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his assistance.
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — Referral of S.O.P. 106 to Commerce Committee 
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — Referral of S.O.P. 106 to Commerce Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8719] 
A party vote was called for on the question That Supplementary Order Paper 106 relating to the Major Events Management Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee for consideration and that the committee in its consideration of the bill have the power to adopt if it thinks fit the amendments set out on the Supplementary Order Paper 
. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 5; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to.
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Question Time—Withdrawal of Members 
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Question Time—Withdrawal of Members 
[Volume:638;Page:8720] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At the outset I make it clear that I am not trying to relitigate a matter that has already been the subject of a ruling from the presiding officer. 
There was an exchange in the House earlier this afternoon at question time. The Speaker asked a couple of my colleagues to leave the Chamber and there was some debate. As a consequence I have gone back and listened to the tape of proceedings. In a nutshell what happened was that after the Speaker heard a point of order from Mr Brownlee I raised a point of order to make the Speaker aware of the fact that a Minister on the Government side of the House had interjected twice during Mr Brownlee’s point of order. The Speaker said that all members who had interjected should leave the Chamber and the Minister duly did. The Speaker then invited members on the Opposition side of the House to leave the Chamber if they had interjected. There was some discussion as to whether members on this side should leave; none did. 
There are two problems that I wish to raise. The first is the suggestion that members on the Opposition side of the Chamber had interjected during a point of order from Mr Brownlee. I now know from seeing the tape that that suggestion is incorrect. The Speaker obviously was at fault with her recollection and she did not recall those events correctly. I have now satisfied myself of this upon hearing the tape. That is a relatively minor matter. But the impression would have been left amongst the people who were listening that some members of the Opposition may have been sufficiently dishonourable after having been asked as a matter of honesty to own up to interjecting to have not left the House when the Speaker had requested them to do so. 
It is quite clear to me that the reason that no members on this side left the House when asked to do so by the Speaker was that no member had offended. It is very clear that no members on the Opposition side of the Chamber raised their voices until after Mr Brownlee had sat down upon finishing his point of order. No interruption was made by members on the Opposition side of the House to that point of order and no offence had occurred. 
With that being the case we are left with a situation where the Speaker has given the impression that some members of the Opposition may have behaved dishonourably and the Speaker has given that impression on the basis of a faulty recollection of events. I take strong offence at that impression being left by the Speaker. I believe that the Speaker owes all members on the Opposition side of the House an abject apology and I seek that apology from the Chair now.
Peachey Allan: Major Events Management Bill — Referral of S.O.P. 106 to Commerce Committee 
Peachey Allan: Major Events Management Bill — Referral of S.O.P. 106 to Commerce Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8719] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Previous speakers to this motion have taken the opportunity to range quite widely over the issue of control at sports venues and I would just like to indulge myself for a little bit and do the same. I just pass the observation that one of the disappointing changes that has occurred in New Zealand life is that a dad can no longer wander on to a rugby pitch with his son at the end of a big game just to look at the turf to go and stand at the spot where the first five kicked the winning goal and that sort of thing. It was so much a part of the upbringing that I had and that other members of the House would have had. People can no longer wander on to the cricket ground at lunchtime and impress their sons with their understanding of the nature of the wicket and its little indents and point to where the fast bowlers’ prints were made. 
The National Party is supporting this motion at this stage as part of a process to enable the select committee to hold hearings and hear what the public have to say. We will do so because the provision of this Supplementary Order Paper 106 is a long long way away from the original intent of the bill when it first came into the House and we debated it. We will support the bill to give the public the opportunity to have their say. 
I will make one final point though. I have just been watching the clock. A good half an hour of the time of this House has been taken up—and it is disappointing that it has—simply because the Minister responsible for this bill as usual did not get it right in the first place. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: He’s not even here. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: He is not even here. He did not get it right in the first place. We have come to expect that from this Minister. If he had really been on the ball he would have realised that this was a critical issue that needed to be considered and it should have been included in the original bill so that we would not have wasted half an hour in this House. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.
McCully Murray: Major Events Management Bill — Referral of S.O.P. 106 to Commerce Committee 
McCully Murray: Major Events Management Bill — Referral of S.O.P. 106 to Commerce Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8715] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Despite the fact that this motion stands in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard the National Party will be supporting it. I will briefly explain to the House why that is the case. This motion has the effect of referring Supplementary Order Paper 106 to the Commerce Committee which is considering the Major Events Management Bill. The reason we are supporting the motion is that were we not to do so members of the public would be denied the opportunity to make submissions in relation to the proposal the Minister wants to put before the House. 
I will make no comment at all on the content of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister wants to introduce. I think the select committee deserves an opportunity to look at that and members of the public deserve an opportunity to make their submissions on it. The only way we can facilitate that is to refer Supplementary Order Paper 106 to the committee by way of this motion. It is clear that the content of the Supplementary Order Paper is some distance away from the main purpose of the Major Events Management Bill. The only way we can make sure the opportunity is there for the Minister’s proposals to be considered is to support this motion. 
The Supplementary Order Paper relates to an important bill. Anyone who has looked at the scale of major upcoming events—in particular the Rugby World Cup—understands the need for some sort of machinery to deal with it. We can talk about that on another day. Members of the public certainly deserve the opportunity to inspect and make submissions in relation to the bill. Accordingly I support this motion.
Mallard Trevor: Major Events Management Bill — Referral of S.O.P. 106 to Commerce Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Major Events Management Bill — Referral of S.O.P. 106 to Commerce Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8713] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 I move  
That Supplementary Order Paper 106 relating to the Major Events Management Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee for consideration and that the committee in its consideration of the bill have the power to adopt if it thinks fit the amendments set out on the Supplementary Order Paper 
.
Wilson Margaret: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Wilson Margaret: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:638;Page:8713] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:638;Page:8713] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I refer back to an earlier exchange in relation to the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. The Government would like to make progress on that bill in the next parliamentary session. Of course that session is dominated in its latter part by the Budget which starts on 17 May but if we extended it by 1 week that would not create a problem in terms of making some progress. I therefore seek leave that the report-back date be extended to 7 May which would assist the select committee.
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8711] 
11.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Consumer Affairs 
: Does she agree with the editorial of last weekend’s  
Sunday Star-Times 
 that the New Zealand Government has “chosen … the route of obfuscation and non-transparency” by not requiring labelling that allows New Zealand consumers to know where their food comes from? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Consumer Affairs 
: No. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that when the average supermarket shopper picks up a packet of bacon like the one I have here showing a Kiwi symbol and labelled “Kiwi” and “taste of New Zealand” he or she is likely to assume that it is New Zealand pork; if so can the Minister explain to this House and to the people of New Zealand why it is OK to state on a label like this “taste of New Zealand” when the producer cannot guarantee that it comes from New Zealand at all? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I understand that the Commerce Commission which is an independent statutory authority is considering a complaint on this matter and it would be inappropriate for the Minister to comment. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is this not evidence that the present system—and the complete lack of any monitoring—is not working as is the recent case where two schoolchildren uncovered the deceptive marketing practices of Glaxo Smith Kline; and does consumer protection under this Government have to rely on school science projects? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would have thought that the prosecution and heavy fine were evidence that the system is working. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports about those who appear to be very concerned about what food people eat yet in respect of complementary medicines want no provision for advice to the consumer at all? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have heard comment on that particular matter but then again one does not always expect consistency from all members of Parliament.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8709] 
9.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What responses has she received to the release of the discussion document reviewing the price control provisions of the Commerce Act 1986? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 A  
New Zealand Herald  
headline today described the document as a plan to give the watchdog bark not just bite. That is because the proposals include light-handed alternatives to price control. They have been welcomed by a range of interests. The head of the Employers and Manufacturers Association said that it puts more focus on investment and gives certainty for investors Air New Zealand said that it was pleased the Government had shown leadership in initiating the review and Vector said that the changes were very much in the right direction. I am very pleased to see such a positive response to this very good review. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What options are included in the discussion document and what are the objectives of the proposed reform? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The aim of the reform is to improve certainty and predictability while maintaining flexibility and while ensuring most important that there is investment in New Zealand’s infrastructure. This is reinforced in the proposed purpose statement for this part of the Act. The discussion document proposes information disclosure and a negotiate-arbitrate regime proposes to set input methodologies as a stand-alone process and as well proposes to introduce a limited form of merit review. It is a well-balanced set of options and I look forward to receiving submissions.
Burton Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Burton Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8701] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I apologise that I did not do this at the end of question No. 3 but I seek leave to table for the assistance of members opposite a copy of  
Case Study 1 NgaiTahu Statutory Acknowledgment for the Clutha River 
. 
Document not tabled.
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8694] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 The Minister of Education is obviously on the naughty step for swearing. I am wondering whether I can seek leave to defer my question— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry would the member please withdraw that comment. It is not consistent with the Standing Orders. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I withdraw. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What is the point the member wishes to make? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I seek leave to defer my question until the Minister is able to answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. Please ask the question.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Answers National Party—Leadership 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Answers National Party—Leadership 
[Volume:638;Page:8693] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to raise a point of order under Standing Order 35(1)(b). That Standing Order relates to the necessity of parties informing you about their leadership and whips. The National Party website at 11.55 a.m. recorded a press statement from “National Party Leader Bill English.” I would like to know Madam Speaker whether you were informed of a change in the National Party leadership—or was he perhaps gone by lunch time? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There has been no such notification.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8693] 
1. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: What significant achievements have recently been made under the New Zealand Disability Strategy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 I am very pleased to announce that last Friday in New York on behalf of New Zealand I signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities along with 81 other countries. The convention makes it explicit that all signatory States have the obligation to ensure that disabled people enjoy human rights on the same basis as non-disabled people. New Zealand has had extensive involvement in the negotiation of the convention including chairing the ad hoc committee. I believe that it is something the whole country can be proud of. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What other significant achievements have been made recently under the New Zealand Disability Strategy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is quite an extensive list but just to highlight a few achievements over the last year I will mention our Government has made New Zealand Sign Language an official language of our country launched the Sign Language curriculum and closed the last institution for disabled people as well as repealing the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act. Despite the last measure having widespread support from the disabled community the National Party has continually opposed it—a move the Disabled Persons Assembly has called offensive outdated and out of touch. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that the promised guidelines for the disability sector from the Department of Labour have not as yet been made available to it and is she in a position to advise when that will occur; if not can she assure the House that this matter will be addressed with some urgency? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The guidelines are for the labour inspectorate in terms of its implementation of the Act rather than being a guide that the sheltered workshop providers need. But I can confirm that that publication will be available shortly.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Answers National Party—Leadership 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Answers National Party—Leadership 
[Volume:638;Page:8693] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I thought about this matter just before coming down to the House. My office will be following up with the Minister’s office and I thank the member for following that procedure.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8692] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I am not prepared to accept that comment from a Government that is having an adjournment only because it has not got enough work to keep Parliament going. Everyone knows that because most people in this country can read an Order Paper. So the Minister should not start that sort of nonsense. 
The second point I would make— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Brownlee; please be seated. I listened to your point of order and say that it is still not a point of order within the Standing Orders. But I tell the member that he was perfectly entitled to seek leave if he wished to do so. That is the correct way to proceed.
Collins Judith: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Answers National Party—Leadership 
Collins Judith: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Answers National Party—Leadership 
[Volume:638;Page:8693] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your assistance on this matter. We are going into a 3-week adjournment and I have 180 questions that are overdue from the Minister for Social Development and Employment Mr Benson-Pope. I have written to the Leader of the House. What else are we supposed to do to get the Minister to answer questions?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8692] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There are two points. Firstly of course if leave is not sought then the Government is not going to be distressed by that. It means the bill will come back when the Government wants the bill brought back and these matters can then be discussed at that point. 
But of course the select committee is perfectly capable of dealing with this bill given its very limited nature and content if it actually meets during the adjournment. I think it is worth saying that adjournments are not times when all those except Ministers simply disappear to the four winds and put their feet up and enjoy themselves.