edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Woodhouse Michael: Urgent Debates — Dotcom Case—Inquiry into Government Communications Security Bureau Actions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Urgent Debates — Dotcom Case—Inquiry into Government Communications Security Bureau Actions 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5772. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I want to just touch on a couple of the comments made by the previous speaker Mr Mallard and in particular his claim that the Prime Minister was not prepared to front up. I think this is something that needs to be addressed because what the member is inferring is that the Prime Minister should act— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot “infer” anything in my speech. I think you mean “imply”. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I infer from those things that the member feels that the Prime Minister should have taken action before all the facts were before him and indeed he called for an apology. But the prudent thing to do was to conduct an inquiry and to need to have the inquiry to establish all the facts. The facts are now on the table. The Prime Minister has apologised to Mr Kim Dotcom and has expressed his disappointment in the events that have transpired. 
But I also think it quite rich for Mr Mallard to say that the Prime Minister should take control of these agencies because Ministers—as that member well knows—do not run agencies. In fact I well recall responses to oral questions in this House when Mr Mallard was the Associate Minister of Transport and calls for him to take control of an issue related to Air New Zealand and the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union in respect of a maintenance dispute at Christchurch Airport. He was at very great pains to point out that it was absolutely not a Minister’s role to interfere with the day-to-day running of Government agencies—so I sense at least an inconsistency—or for that matter a State-owned enterprise like Air New Zealand which would have been even worse frankly. So the member says one thing in Government and another thing in Opposition. 
 But it is clear and indeed the lawyers acting for Mr Dotcom have indicated that information contained in the report that was released today could be used as evidence in the extradition hearing that is currently before the High Court. As such it would be entirely inappropriate for any member of the Government—or this House frankly—to comment on the matters that may yet be before the court. There are very strict protocols in respect of the legislature’s boundaries in respect of judicial proceedings—and vice versa I should add—and I think Minister Finlayson very clearly explained the reasons why and the aspects of the report. I just want to endorse those comments by the Attorney-General and say no more about it. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Tisch Lindsay: Urgent Debates — Dotcom Case—Inquiry into Government Communications Security Bureau Actions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Urgent Debates — Dotcom Case—Inquiry into Government Communications Security Bureau Actions 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5769. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Labour has a 10-minute call but we still have one 5-minute call to go. So— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Andrew Williams. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No on the list here it is actually— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well no. They didn’t call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No they did not call. They should have called. They did not. I am calling Andrew Williams.
Macindoe Tim: Urgent Debates — Dotcom Case—Inquiry into Government Communications Security Bureau Actions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Urgent Debates — Dotcom Case—Inquiry into Government Communications Security Bureau Actions 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5769. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I would like to take a very short call as well in my capacity as chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee essentially to endorse what has just been said by the junior Government whip and the Attorney-General before her. 
I am concerned that Opposition members are jeopardising the integrity and fairness of our judicial system by seeking to make political capital out of proceedings that in fact I believe are currently before the Court of Appeal. That is inappropriate and regrettable—[ 
Interruption 
]—and nothing in the bluster and interjections of Opposition members at this moment will in any way refute that point. So I simply wish to urge Opposition members to exercise better judgment and to respect the very important constitutional and judicial principles that are at stake in this issue. This must be dealt with appropriately. Members of this House should above all respect that.
Upston Louise: Urgent Debates — Dotcom Case—Inquiry into Government Communications Security Bureau Actions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Upston Louise: Urgent Debates — Dotcom Case—Inquiry into Government Communications Security Bureau Actions 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5768. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief moment to echo the very important messages that were delivered to this House by the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson. One of those is the fact that great caution is required in this House because there are currently proceedings before the High Court. 
One of the things that has disturbed me is the suggestion by some members on the other side of the House that the Minister responsible for the Government Communications Security Bureau should be in charge and in control of operational matters on a day-to-day basis. To go down that track would be a very dark day not just for this House but for this country. 
The Attorney-General also quite rightly pointed out our international responsibilities and obligations in terms of fighting crime across the globe and he made the distinctions very carefully around the two aspects—mutual assistance as very distinct from extradition. So in the air of caution I want to leave it at that but I want to just remind this House that this side is taking great care and great caution in being constitutionally proper.
Tisch Lindsay: Urgent Debates — Dotcom Case—Inquiry into Government Communications Security Bureau Actions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Urgent Debates — Dotcom Case—Inquiry into Government Communications Security Bureau Actions 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5767. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I call Charles Chauvel. This is a 5-minute call and I will ring the bell at 4 minutes.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Dotcom Case—Inquiry into Government Communications Security Bureau Actions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Dotcom Case—Inquiry into Government Communications Security Bureau Actions 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5757. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the release of the inquiry by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security into the circumstances of unlawful interception of communications of certain individuals by the Government Communications Security Bureau. This release is a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The Inspector-General’s report was released at 1.42 p.m. today. Mr Robertson’s application was received by me at 1.55 p.m. today. I also received an application relating to the same matter from Dr Russel Norman at 2.29 p.m. today. Applications for urgent debates must be received before the House sits. 
However given the current public interest in the performance of intelligence agencies and the need for a high level of public confidence in their activities in relation to New Zealand I have given particular consideration to Mr Robertson’s application which was in before the House sat today. As there will not be an opportunity to debate the matter for some weeks now I call on Mr Robertson to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5740. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Can the Deputy Leader of the House inform us as to whether it is still the Government’s intention to make a little progress on the alcohol reforms the following week?
O'Connor Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5754. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has she received on the 2011 NCEA results? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have received the final report on 2011 school-leaver qualification data for National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results and I am delighted as I am sure all members of the House will be with the improvements across the board. Last year nearly 72 percent of all school-leavers attained at least NCEA level 2 compared with 69 percent in 2010 and 66 percent in 2009. That is up 6 percent in the last 3 years. I am delighted with this result and I know we can do better and I look forward to further increases next year and in future years. 
Simon O’Connor 
: What does the 2011 NCEA level 2 data show about the outcomes for Maori and Pasifika school-leavers? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I am happy to say that the data shows we are already making a significant impact on the number of young Maori leaving school with NCEA level 2. Last year 51 percent of Maori students left school with NCEA level 2 up from 44 percent in 2009 and 48 percent in 2010. That is up 7 percent in the last 3 years. Similarly 63 percent of Pasifika students left with NCEA level 2 compared with 59 percent in 2010 and 56 percent in 2009. That is up another 7 percent in the last 3 years. Although this is a very good result and shows we are on the right track our Government has much higher aspirations for our young people. We think we can do much better with a clear focus on lifting achievement for five out of five learners.
Ardern Jacinda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5754. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: Does she stand by her statement that “The National-led Government’s initiatives will modernise welfare to better suit New Zealand’s needs and make welfare work”? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Yes within context. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What evidence did she use before deciding to target beneficiaries with her social obligations that they enrol their children with an early childhood educator and general practitioner given that she has said: “we don’t know the exact percentage of which are not enrolled in early-childhood education or enrolled with a GP.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think as the various Cabinet papers and speeches that the Minister has made will make clear the Minister is aware of all the evidence that suggests that early childhood education does help improve children’s ability to enter the school system and to get the rudimentary understandings that they need. We all know that being enrolled in a general practice does mean a child is more likely to have had their immunisation to have had primary care and certainly the B4 School Check. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What is her response to prominent economist Gareth Morgan who said of her bill that “National’s reactionary populism is a giant step backwards in policy sophistication and is depressing.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not think the Minister would be too concerned at that commentary from Mr Gareth Morgan because I think the Minister is very well aware that the work she is doing is to make sure that all the incentives align on rewarding work and independence and that for those who are most vulnerable we have services and obligations and expectations in order to help them to get into work and to ensure that their children are being supported as well as the Public Service can.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5754. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Ardern Jacinda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5754. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold over my question until the Minister for Social Development is available to answer.
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5753. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
8. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What percentage of households in Hawke’s Bay and on the West Coast of the South Island are expected to go digital ahead of the digital switchover in these regions on 30 September 2012? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 It is expected that around 96 percent of Hawke’s Bay and West Coast households with TVs will have gone digital by the end of the month. At the beginning of the year the conversion rate in Hawke’s Bay was just 80 percent. Thanks to the effort of the Going Digital team there is a high level of awareness in these regions which are now approaching 100 percent. 
John Hayes 
: What is being done to promote awareness in the next region to go digital? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: The rest of the South Island will have its digital switch-over at the end of April next year. The digital switch-over awareness campaign has been rolled out across the South Island through community advisers and local advertising. People who may be eligible for the targeted assistance package are already being contacted directly.
Bennett David: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett David: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5781. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That speech by Gareth Hughes was just totally inappropriate for this National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill and it shows the level of incompetence in the Green Party. It is not a party of principle; it is merely a moon that goes round “Planet Labour”. It has achieved nothing will never achieve anything and will do nothing in this Parliament because it can never ever be part of a Government and because its members are objectors and that is all they are. 
This is a bill that has actually had real consultation and real listening between the parties involved in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I would like to thank all the parties that were on the select committee and that worked constructively together. I thank especially the members of the select committee our Minister of Arts Culture and Heritage and also the Labour Party members for their work in this area. 
This is a bill where we did have consultation and where we brought the community in. We actually changed the bill to give the community more avenues for further consultation and effectiveness in the implementation of this bill. It is good work of this Parliament it is for a good cause and it was done to get this project completed by the time of a very important day in our history. It is time that this Parliament supported this bill and even the most principled approach should be one of support. Thank you.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5746. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
3. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What were the results of the Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy 2009-2012? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Targets set for prisoners engaged in education and employment under the strategy have been exceeded by more than 100 percent. During the course of the Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy 2009-2012 the number of prisoners in vocational training employment and literacy and numeracy education increased to 7529 from 5359 an increase of 2170 compared with the target of 1000. There has also been a 33 percent increase in prisoners enrolled in literacy and numeracy programmes of which 58 percent are Maori. All evidence shows that prisoners who are released with improved skills are significantly less likely to reoffend. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What are the next steps for the Department of Corrections to further improve the numbers of prisoners engaged in employment and training? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The Better Public Services targets for the Department of Corrections will see a 25 percent reduction in reoffending by 2017. This will lead to 600 fewer prisoners and 4000 fewer community offenders being reconvicted every year and 18500 fewer victims every year. Over the next 5 years nearly 3000 additional prisoners will be in education and employment training while 7500 prisoners and community offenders will be given support to find real jobs in new partnerships with employers and industry.
Hipkins Chris: Personal Explanations — Tabling of Documents—Accuracy of Description of Documents 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Personal Explanations — Tabling of Documents—Accuracy of Description of Documents 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5742. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct a misrepresentation that has just been made— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Is the member seeking leave to make a personal explanation? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Yes that is right to correct a misrepresentation made by the senior Government whip. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we have got to be a little careful here. We have got to be a little careful with seeking leave to make a personal explanation. We had a situation yesterday where a member was granted leave and then started to talk about another political party. If the member is clear that he wishes to make a personal explanation because something has been said that is personally offensive to him then I am perfectly happy to seek leave from the House for that. If the member wants to contest what another member has said for its accuracy the member should write to the Speaker. There is a procedure about that. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I think the difficulty we have is that the senior Government whip has made an allegation about me by way of a point of order. 
I have now had the opportunity to consult the document that I tabled yesterday and it is incorrect. That was raised— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member is now by way of a point of order trying to—I think if the member is going to exclusively speak about his situation I am prepared to put the leave to the House for the member to make a personal explanation. Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Yesterday in question time I sought leave to table a document and I paraphrased from the document what I believed that it contained. The document is in fact itself a series of paraphrases of the discussion that took place at a meeting that was run by the Ministry of Education and therefore it does not necessarily follow a logical flow. Questions were raised regarding special education but questions were also raised regarding the time frame that schools would be required to take. For the benefit of the House I quote directly from the document which I did not do yesterday but I will do now: “The advice from National Office regarding the likely timeframe for community consultation was that a recommendation would go to the Minister suggesting five to six weeks.” The following paragraph then goes on to say that if the board decided it needed more time or the Minister decided it needed more time there can be a further 28-day period. I am of the understanding from people who were at the meeting and from the context of the rest of the document that that does not in fact refer to special education but refers to the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member is now starting to debate what was said by another member. I think he has made his position fairly clear in the personal explanation that he has made. 
Question time resumed.
Woodhouse Michael: Points of Order — Tabling of Documents—Accuracy of Description of Documents 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Points of Order — Tabling of Documents—Accuracy of Description of Documents 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5740. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is in respect of the tabling of documents. As you know we have discussed whether or not Speakers’ rulings 147(4) (5) and (6) are being followed when there is the injection of commentary into the tabling of documents. I raise this in respect of the documents tabled by the senior Opposition whip yesterday in response to an oral question to the Minister of Education where he paraphrased and I quote—I will not quote exactly but it is basically suggesting that the Minister’s time frame would be 5 to 6 weeks. On analysing the document when it was tabled it eventuated that neither was it the Minister’s time frame nor was it in respect of mergers and closures in Christchurch but in fact of the special education review that was under way. I do not want to suggest to the House that the Opposition whip misled the House or if he did that it was intentional but I raise it as an example of the risks involved in the commentary that goes around the tabling of documents and I would ask that you would again review that with a view to curtailing the commentary that is attached to the leave that is sought. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the point that is being raised is an interesting one. I ask members naturally to say sufficient about the document to enable the House to make a rational decision about whether members should allow it to be tabled. But I think the point is well made that that should not include going into great detail of what is in the document. Members must be careful when they indicate what is in the document. I think members need to have some idea of what is in the document in order to make a decision about whether it should be tabled but the need for absolute accuracy there is crucial. Seeking leave to table a document is an action of some formality. Members have thought about the desire to seek leave. The House considers the matter and gives leave. It is an important process. Therefore careful thought should be given by members when they do indicate what is in a document.
Sabin Mike: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sabin Mike: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5787. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 It is a privilege to take this last call on this very important bill the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. As a former serviceman whose father Lew Sabin and my uncle Lew Gibb were also former servicemen this bill holds a special place with me. Can I just acknowledge all current and all former servicemen in particular and those who have given their lives so that we have the freedoms that we enjoy today. Can I make clear the reverence that I hold certainly this party holds and indeed all New Zealanders hold for those men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice. 
 Anzac Day truly does epitomise the very special place in the hearts of New Zealanders that these veterans and servicemen and current servicemen occupy. This bill really is about providing the mechanics to ensure that in 2015 on Anzac Day we have an appropriate place to pay homage to those people who have laid their lives down for us and those who have served in wars and come home and carry those scars with them for ever. 
This bill is about ensuring that we have a place to celebrate for them. The politics that have been played out today are not what is important here. Those people are special to us. This place will be special to us. They have made sacrifices lest anyone in this House or this nation forget. I commend this bill to the House.
Tolley Anne: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tolley Anne: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5740. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House is in a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 16 October the Government will complete the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill and the Committee stages of the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill and the Legislation Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Peters Winston: Obituaries — Sir John Wallace KNZM QC 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Obituaries — Sir John Wallace KNZM QC 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5739. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the passing of Sir John Wallace who as you know was the Chief Human Rights Commissioner a High Court judge and the chairman of the royal commission on the electoral reform structure that we now have. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I move  
That this House note the passing of Sir John Wallace KNZM QC former Chief Human Rights Commissioner judge of the High Court of New Zealand and chairman of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System which recommended the MMP system for selecting elected members of Parliament 
. On behalf of New Zealand First I wish to pay respects and to mark the passing of an eminent and distinguished New Zealander. Sir John made an outstanding contribution to public office in New Zealand in all the roles he fulfilled with distinction. As chairman of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System which recommended the introduction of MMP Sir John made a lasting and profound difference to our parliamentary system and democracy. We extend our condolences to Sir John’s family. 
Motion agreed to.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Ombudsmen Office—50th Anniversary of Establishment 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Ombudsmen Office—50th Anniversary of Establishment 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5739. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I want to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by others to first of all recognise and secondly congratulate the Office of the Ombudsmen on the attainment of its 50th anniversary. 
When the office was established in 1962 times were much simpler and the notion that there should be some sort of independent watchdog able to call Government agencies to account for actions where the individual citizen felt aggrieved was a pretty attractive one. For the first 20 years of the office’s existence that was largely its primary function. But the role of the Office of the Ombudsmen has changed significantly since the advent of the Official Information Act and the Ombudsman has become much more of an arbiter of decisions as to whether or not certain information should be released. I often fear that that may be to the cost of the individual citizen. The aggrieved small person who wanted to take an action before the Ombudsman may now find that the pressure from other claims usually associated with Official Information Act requests in and around Government is reducing that authority. I am not saying that the two are inconsistent. I guess I am supporting the role of the office and the need for it to be resourced to do the job. 
Finally can I conclude by noting the high calibre of people who have served in the role of Chief Ombudsman over the years. I have had the privilege of working at various times with every one of them bar Sir Guy Powles and I think that they have all brought a uniformly high standard of integrity intelligence and perspicacity to the role. At the end of the day what has made this office the success it has been aped by so many other countries around the world but also now a revered New Zealand institution has been the calibre of people who have served in that role. I think the challenge for this Parliament in the future when it appoints the next round of Ombudspeople is to make sure that that consistently high standard is maintained and developed and that the office in its next 50 years continues to receive the respect that it deserves from the citizens of New Zealand. 
Motion agreed to.
Peters Winston: Motions — Ombudsmen Office—50th Anniversary of Establishment 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Motions — Ombudsmen Office—50th Anniversary of Establishment 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5738. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First joins with other parties in acknowledging the celebration of this 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsmen. As has been said to be correct New Zealand was the first country outside of Scandinavia to establish an Office of the Ombudsmen. Since then the Office of the Ombudsmen has come to play a significant role in our democracy. 
How ironic it is that we are marking this event this week. Thomas Jefferson said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. This week we have had a perfect illustration through the revelations of unlawful surveillance activity of the Government Communications Security Bureau of the importance of ensuring open transparent and accountable Government. We have been reminded that the greatest threat to our democracy is secrecy and the abuse of power that occurs when the public are denied their right to know. Once again we have seen that those in power are given to ignoring due process and the law and that an effective democracy requires a range of supporting structures and institutions. 
The Office of the Ombudsmen has proven a powerful mechanism for keeping the public informed but there is a deeply troubling tendency for Government to apply obfuscation and delay in responding to Official Information Act requests and all of us around here have been privy to that. New Zealand First considers there is a strong case that additional funding should be allocated to the Office of the Ombudsmen to ensure the public can gain access to official information without the inordinate delay that is often now the case. And probably the same should be said about the Neazor report and that office as well. 
It is appropriate that we mark the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsmen because it plays a vital role in supporting democratic processes in New Zealand.
Tolley Anne: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tolley Anne: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5740. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Depending on discussions in the Business Committee the Alcohol Reform Bill is intended to return to the House on 23 October.
Hughes Gareth: Motions — Ombudsmen Office—50th Anniversary of Establishment 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: Motions — Ombudsmen Office—50th Anniversary of Establishment 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5738. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support the motion on the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsmen. When New Zealand’s first Ombudsman Sir Guy Powles was sworn in in front of the Speaker of Parliament in 1962 he said “The Ombudsman is Parliament’s person—put there for the protection of the individual”. New Zealand was the fourth country after Sweden Finland and Denmark to establish the Office of the Ombudsmen and was the first country outside of Scandinavia. It is an idea that has caught on and now according to the International Ombudsman Institute there are more than 150 countries with Ombudsmen-like institutions around the world. 
We would like to acknowledge the work of all the Ombudsmen including the current two Dame Beverley Wakem and Dr David McGee and also all the staff who have worked for them over the years. They play an important role in our democracy. 
However we would also like to note the importance of adequate funding for them to be able to do that important role. In the 2011 financial review of the Office of the Ombudsmen the Chief Ombudsman stated that the office was in crisis and was now handling a significant increase in workload. We share what the member Charles Chauvel has said about the responsibility of all in Parliament to adequately fund the office. 
We have not agreed with every decision made by the Ombudsmen and probably Governments have agreed even less which I guess is testimony to the independence of the office. But I would like to share one positive example. In 2009 councils in Tasman and Canterbury were refusing to release important information regarding thousands of potentially contaminated toxic sites. As a result of the action by the Ombudsmen that information is now public. We believe it was the right call and it would not have happened without the intervention of the Ombudsmen. Fifty years on we would like to acknowledge the establishment of this important office. Kia ora.
Obituaries — Sir John Wallace KNZM QC 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Obituaries — Sir John Wallace KNZM QC 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5739. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Obituaries 
Sir John Wallace KNZM QC 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the passing of Sir John Wallace who as you know was the Chief Human Rights Commissioner a High Court judge and the chairman of the royal commission on the electoral reform structure that we now have. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I move  
That this House note the passing of Sir John Wallace KNZM QC former Chief Human Rights Commissioner judge of the High Court of New Zealand and chairman of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System which recommended the MMP system for selecting elected members of Parliament 
. On behalf of New Zealand First I wish to pay respects and to mark the passing of an eminent and distinguished New Zealander. Sir John made an outstanding contribution to public office in New Zealand in all the roles he fulfilled with distinction. As chairman of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System which recommended the introduction of MMP Sir John made a lasting and profound difference to our parliamentary system and democracy. We extend our condolences to Sir John’s family. 
Motion agreed to.
Points of Order — Tabling of Documents—Accuracy of Description of Documents 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Points of Order — Tabling of Documents—Accuracy of Description of Documents 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5740. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Points of Order 
Tabling of Documents—Accuracy of Description of Documents 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is in respect of the tabling of documents. As you know we have discussed whether or not Speakers’ rulings 147(4) (5) and (6) are being followed when there is the injection of commentary into the tabling of documents. I raise this in respect of the documents tabled by the senior Opposition whip yesterday in response to an oral question to the Minister of Education where he paraphrased and I quote—I will not quote exactly but it is basically suggesting that the Minister’s time frame would be 5 to 6 weeks. On analysing the document when it was tabled it eventuated that neither was it the Minister’s time frame nor was it in respect of mergers and closures in Christchurch but in fact of the special education review that was under way. I do not want to suggest to the House that the Opposition whip misled the House or if he did that it was intentional but I raise it as an example of the risks involved in the commentary that goes around the tabling of documents and I would ask that you would again review that with a view to curtailing the commentary that is attached to the leave that is sought. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the point that is being raised is an interesting one. I ask members naturally to say sufficient about the document to enable the House to make a rational decision about whether members should allow it to be tabled. But I think the point is well made that that should not include going into great detail of what is in the document. Members must be careful when they indicate what is in the document. I think members need to have some idea of what is in the document in order to make a decision about whether it should be tabled but the need for absolute accuracy there is crucial. Seeking leave to table a document is an action of some formality. Members have thought about the desire to seek leave. The House considers the matter and gives leave. It is an important process. Therefore careful thought should be given by members when they do indicate what is in a document.
Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5740. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Business Statement 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House is in a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 16 October the Government will complete the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill and the Committee stages of the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill and the Legislation Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Can the Deputy Leader of the House inform us as to whether it is still the Government’s intention to make a little progress on the alcohol reforms the following week? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Depending on discussions in the Business Committee the Alcohol Reform Bill is intended to return to the House on 23 October.
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5734. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It was not that long ago that New Zealanders were told by the National Party to “Wave goodbye to higher taxes not your loved ones.” Does anyone remember that? Do you know what? National lied. It lied. What have we had since then? We have had the income gap with Australia widen from 30 percent to 35 percent. We have had the numbers of young New Zealanders— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I delayed somewhat on the basis that you were going to pull up the unparliamentary comment by that member. I would ask that you do so now and that he withdraw it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I was actually thinking about it at the time. The member knows that you cannot use the word “lie” because it actually reflects on all of the House. I ask the member to desist. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Mr Chairperson I certainly take your guidance on that matter notwithstanding the fact that it was a factual statement and the delivery—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! To the member on my right you cannot use a live microphone. I just ask the member to go straight to the debate. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There is no doubt that New Zealanders have not waved goodbye to higher taxes. That is clear from this bill the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill which deals with GST because GST went up not down for all New Zealanders. The tax package of which it was part which was promised to be fiscally neutral was not. I am not sure what you call it when you campaign on moving in one direction and then you do the exact opposite. It is should we say an anomaly a discontinuity an untruth perhaps in the eye of the beholder. 
This bill shows not the ineptitude of the current Government not the abject failure of the current Government but the errant timidity of this Government. Surrounded by lay-offs from manufacturing plants each and every week; surrounded by unemployment that is going up not down; surrounded by a median income that has fallen 3 percent since it took office— 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill without amendment; the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill without amendment and that the Committee had divided it into seven bills; progress on the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill; and no progress on the Legislation Bill. 
Report adopted.
Robertson H V Ross: Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5731. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: When this bill was last being considered we had reached Part 5. The Hon Damien O’Connor had the call. He has 25 seconds remaining if he so wishes. I call the honourable member the Rev. Dr David Clark.
Tolley Anne: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tolley Anne: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5730. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) 
on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill the Education (Student Allowances Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill the Income Tax (Working for Families Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill the Social Security (Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill and the War Pensions (Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill pursuant 
 to Supplementary Order Paper 129.
Robertson H V Ross: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5727. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Dr David Parker. 
Dr David Clark 
: David Parker? That’s new to me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: David Clark.
McClay Todd: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
McClay Todd: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5726. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hutchison Paul: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutchison Paul: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5722. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to have a short call on this Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. I would think that every perceptive member of Parliament would be celebrating the quick passage of this bill Parts 1 and 2 rather than being cynical about it. 
I want to talk just on Part 2 for a moment. If one looks at the general policy statement it says this: “Continuing these exclusions ensures that recipients of social assistance are not reimbursed for the increases in tobacco duties. Any reimbursement for those increases would contradict the reason for making them which is to discourage smoking.” And we all know that an excise tax is probably the most effective measure in diminishing smoking in this country. 
But I want to say a little bit more. This bill is just another step forward in many steps towards achieving a smoke-free New Zealand and under National there have been some very significant steps. Firstly there is the fact that we have made diminishing smoking one of the very successful health targets. This has had a huge impact over the last 2 to 3 years. Secondly we have put more money into Quitline funding and counselling. Thirdly as I speak tobacco displays are disappearing throughout the shops and supermarkets of New Zealand. And fourthly of course we have backed that up with 4 years—one year after another—of 10 percent increases in the excise tax which will be a hugely significant step towards diminishing smoking in this country. 
This bill is not to be viewed cynically; it is to be celebrated as a great public health measure.
Hutchison Paul: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutchison Paul: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5718. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.