edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2382] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Greens are supporting this bill. The key feature of the bill is the widening of eligibility criteria for legal aid. Some 400000 additional people will become eligible for legal aid. Income thresholds for legal aid have not changed since 1969 resulting in ever-increasing numbers of lower-income New Zealanders becoming ineligible for legal assistance. 
For many access to justice has become dependent on the ability to pay. The bill raises income thresholds and allows them to be set by Order in Council rather than by a lengthy process through Parliament. However the increases in eligibility do not go far enough. The passage of this legislation opened up the potential to increase collective eligibility for legal aid expanding the coverage into socially and ecologically useful areas. More often than not the only thing standing between an ecologically sensitive area and a wealthy developer is an impoverished hapu or community group. The need for environmental legal aid remains unanswered by this bill. 
The Greens were very proud to have got the legal assistance fund through the Ministry for the Environment in 2000 but it is a tiny amount of money—well under $1 million for all for the year. There is a cap of $30000 per case which does not go very far and is available only for cases in front of the Environment Court. It was a good start but we need to go further and we need to integrate environmental legal aid with criminal justice system legal aid. 
The way legal aid is to be administered under this bill will make the abuse of the service more difficult due to a better assessment of assets. People will be less able to hide their assets in order to qualify for legal aid. The Greens support the debt management provisions that the new legislation introduces. Where a debt exists there should be effective mechanisms to recover it. But debt recovery should not be the main thrust of the legislation. Legal aid should not become just a legal loan. We are talking here about the poorest people in New Zealand who are dependent on legal aid. 
The Greens also support the funding set aside for private mediation and restorative justice initiatives. It is obvious New Zealand is facing a crisis in our corrections system and the current punitive system is simply not working especially for Maori. Mediation and restorative justice are two initiatives that the Greens see as a positive political development. The Greens are also supportive of the changes to the interests of justice consideration by the additional consideration of previous convictions. This is a significant reform in the interests of first-time offenders especially young people as it supports the principle of early prevention. It is very important for youths to avoid a first conviction because it can lead to what Kevin Campbell has called a “spiral of offences and convictions”. 
Although we wish that in some respects the bill went further we are supporting its passage through the House.
Dalziel Lianne: Meat Board Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Meat Board Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2374] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Meat Board Amendment Bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee 
referred to Primary Production Committee 
 and that the committee present its report on or before 27 July 2006. 
Motion agreed to.
Choudhary Ashraf: Meat Board Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Meat Board Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2364] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a brief call in support of the bill. 
Hon David Carter 
: Oh do 10 minutes. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: I thank David Carter. He has been a good chair of the Primary Production Committee of which I am a member and I am delighted that his party will support the bill at the select committee. I look forward to a good discussion there. I say to Doug Woolerton that we do miss him. He was a good member of that select committee in the last Parliament and we miss him. 
This is a very small bill that is really more of a technical nature. It is important that this issue should be fixed. It is important that all the meat we produce in this country is properly exported. This bill will ensure that we allocate access to quota markets to meat industry participants who hold export registration certification whether or not they currently export meat products. This bill removes any potential ambiguity and thereby improves business certainty for all market participants and the Meat Board at any stage of our meat quota allocation. The bill will ensure that the financial benefits associated with New Zealand’s preferential access to quota markets will continue to be available to the wider New Zealand meat industry optimising positive economic outcomes in the domestic market. With those few words I support this bill.
Tisch Lindsay: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tisch Lindsay: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2360] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not want to interrupt my colleague Dr Blue’s question. When Minister Harry Duynhoven sought leave to table a document there was objection to it being tabled from the member Dr Cullen. He is pointing to Minister Mallard. In fact the Minister Harry Duynhoven did table a document. There was objection and it should not have been tabled. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Can I please make it clear that I did withdraw my objection. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I was not sure whether there was an objection which is why I asked whether there was. Frequently there are murmurings around and people do in fact when it is repeated either object clearly or do not. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The point of order is that as Speaker you did not put the question again as to whether there was any objection. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I did. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well we did not hear it over here. It was very clear on this side of the House that there was objection from the Minister and that was not clarified from our point of view. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I apologise. I will speak louder next time.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2356] 
9.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What steps is the Government taking to assist exporters enter key overseas markets? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Substantial through the Beachheads programme export awards and Export Year. The Beachheads programme provides office solutions clustering with New Zealand companies access to expert and market advice and support and an entry point to the contacts and networks needed to grow an export business. Beachheads is in place in the United Kingdom the United States Singapore Dubai and soon my colleague Jim Sutton will open it in Tokyo. Seventy high-quality companies—and I emphasise that; they have to go through a rigorous selection process—have joined the programme so far with 35 in the last year. 
Jill Pettis 
: What other steps is the Government taking to ensure that our export performance improves? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We have designated 2007 as Export Year in order to help improve New Zealand’s productivity and growth.
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2351] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The Hon Dover Samuels was with us in the select committee only an hour or so ago. I am sure he is on his way to the House. I seek leave to have the question dealt with later in question time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2351] 
5.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What action is New Zealand currently taking to secure access for New Zealand apples into the Australian market? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 New Zealand yesterday raised the issue of apple access into Australia at the World Trade Organization (WTO) Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures in Geneva. This is the third time that we have taken the matter up at that committee and received strong support from others such as the United States. Today New Zealand has forwarded a formal submission to Biosecurity Australia in response to its draft import risk assessment. In both cases New Zealand has strongly and clearly demonstrated why Australia’s proposed quarantine measures are not scientifically justified and must be changed. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What consultation was undertaken in putting together the submission to Biosecurity Australia and does it have the support of New Zealand’s industry body? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The submission is a detailed and technically rigorous 102-page document drafted by Biosecurity New Zealand in close consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The industry body Pipfruit New Zealand was closely involved in its drafting and is supportive of the submission. The submission expresses the significant concerns of both the Government and industry about the conditions that have been proposed for our apples’ access. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: How is it that this course of action was not followed years ago like when National was the Government? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: National members who tend to be lions in Opposition were lambs when they were in Government. I think the then Minister of Trade said that he did not think that the WTO was the appropriate area. I know that nothing actually happened under the National Government on this issue for 9 years. 
Craig Foss 
: Does the Minister agree with the Australian Apple Access Group which had in its submission on the draft import risk assessment that the final import risk assessment report be released by 30 June 2006 and if this date is not achieved what action will he take? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have seen that from the apples action group. That group knows of course that the timing is in the hands of Biosecurity Australia; it is not in our hands. It is possible of course at any time to take this matter to the WTO disputes process. The difficulty is that the moment we do that the import risk assessment process would stop immediately and the WTO process I am advised would take 3 to 6 years so we would be shooting ourselves in the foot to do what that member is implying we should.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2345] 
1. SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports if any has he received indicating that effective marginal tax rates should be increased? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received reports suggesting that payments under Working for Families should abate at a rate that would mean that a person on a parliamentary salary of $118000 with five children would not receive any payment under the scheme. This of course would mean a higher level of abatement and therefore higher effective marginal tax rates. For the person referred to yesterday with 20 children to be abated out by that level of salary would imply an abatement rate of 70 percent and an effective marginal tax rate of 109 percent on all income above $60000 a year. 
Shane Jones 
: Has he seen any reports that indicate support for avoidance measures to rort the Working for Families scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports suggesting that a dual-income family with five children where one income earner is paid $118000 per annum would be paid money under the Working for Families scheme. Of course this would be true only if the family failed to declare the second income in the household. I hope that no one in this House would encourage the latter behaviour which would of course be a serious rort of the system. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How is the Government encouraging people into work when a person on the domestic purposes benefit with three children who increases his or her wages from work from $10000 a year to $25000 a year would face an effective marginal tax rate of approximately 90 percent leaving that person with less than $1700 of that extra $15000 earned? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: May I thank the member for the opportunity to answer that question because yesterday the National Party asked questions implying the abatement rate was far too low. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith is now asking a question saying that the abatement rate is far too high. I just wish the Opposition could work out this scheme and get their answers consistent from one day to the next. In any case he is using the old abatement rates not the new ones. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Could the Minister please explain how the old abatement rates are being used when the figures I have used were supplied by the Inland Revenue Department yesterday as applying from 1 April this year—does the Minister not even know his own portfolio? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is very interesting but my response to the member is that abatement rates at some point in coming off benefit of about 90 percent have been in the New Zealand system at any time since it was instituted otherwise the member is getting up and asking me why somebody on $100000 a year is still getting the domestic purposes benefit.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2345] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am sure that is so. I am not sitting on that committee on that particular case for the very obvious reason that I am one of the shareholding Ministers of the organisation that is being charged with a privileges offence. But if the member is trying to tell me that his colleagues never report to his caucus about what goes on in select committees then I would strongly recommend that they adopt that practice in the future.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2345] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Noting that the Privileges Committee is an important organ of this Parliament I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister can assure us that the Labour and Government-supporting members of that committee have not been in some sort of collusion to predetermine an outcome from that committee?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2345] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Obviously reports are given to all members of this House. I was very careful to say “I understand” that the report may be available for debate next Thursday. Those sorts of decisions are discussed in the Business Committee and elsewhere. It is a matter of good order in this House to indicate we have already committed ourselves to an item of business next Thursday and that therefore we should consider how we manage that business in that particular circumstance.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2345] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have just been reflecting on the information given to the House today by Dr Michael Cullen who is the Leader of the House and the Deputy Prime Minister in which he indicated that he understood that the Privileges Committee would table a report in Parliament on Wednesday and would be debated on Thursday. The Privileges Committee has been meeting over a particular matter. Today the most recent meeting was closed to the public and the determinations of that committee are not public. Given that I as a member of the committee cannot tell members when that report will be tabled how at this stage can he so confidently prepare the House for a debate on the report? He is not a member of the committee and should not have the information.
Bennett David: Tabling of Documents — Wine-box Inquiry 
Bennett David: Tabling of Documents — Wine-box Inquiry 
[Volume:630;Page:2344] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table question for written answer No. 4381 from Ken Shirley to Jack Elder about payments made in respect of legal expenses. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Questions to Spokesperson 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Questions to Spokesperson 
[Volume:630;Page:2344] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have heard enough thank you. The member has had an opportunity to put his point we have had a response and I have had advice. The Speaker of course is not responsible for how members are described outside this House. In the context of the Standing Orders however as has been noted under Standing Order 369 only Ministers can be questioned. However it is correct that under Standing Order 370 other members may be questioned in limited circumstances and those circumstances relate to business before the House.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Questions to Spokesperson 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Questions to Spokesperson 
[Volume:630;Page:2344] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think this matter is very clear. Standing Order 369 obviously relates to questions to Ministers; it is absolutely specific in that respect. Of course the Minister responsible for these matters is the Acting Minister of Energy the Hon Trevor Mallard. Standing Order 370(1) does of course state: “Questions may be put to a member (not being a Minister or the Speaker) relating to any bill motion or public matter connected with the business of the House of which the member has charge.” But that is always interpreted very narrowly. If the member cares to think about it he will see that it is in his own interest and that of the Opposition that it is interpreted very narrowly because sometimes obviously the Government thinks about whether it could somehow invent some questions for Opposition spokespeople on a variety of matters on which it might be interesting to have them under parliamentary scrutiny for an extended period of time. I am sure that narrow interpretation will continue to be the case.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Questions to Spokesperson 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Questions to Spokesperson 
[Volume:630;Page:2344] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is an important point of order in respect of Standing Orders 370 and 371 and relates to questions to the Government. My point of order relates to a press release by the Government today in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons who is stated to be the Government spokesperson on energy efficiency. The core of our parliamentary democracy is the capacity to question members in this House on their responsibilities. The advice I have had from the Clerk’s Office is that it is not possible for me to lodge questions to Jeanette Fitzsimons despite the fact she is the Government spokesperson on energy efficiency. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has a vote of nearly $20 million a year. Its officials have advised me that indeed Jeanette Fitzsimons is the person in charge of that. Madam Speaker I do not necessarily wish you to give a ruling off the cuff because I think that when the Standing Orders were written it was not envisaged that members from an Opposition party would have responsibilities within the Government but I think you do need to give a considered ruling. Members need to be able to question members who have specific responsibilities—in this case Jeanette Fitzsimons as the Government spokesperson on energy efficiency.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Quotations 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Quotations 
[Volume:630;Page:2343] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I gave a ruling yesterday on the use of quotations in questions and replies. This was a subject that I had promised the House last week that I would consider—see  
Hansard 
 23 March at page 2136. Following my ruling a point of order was raised about why I had not addressed an issue that also arose last week concerning the capacity in which Ministers can be questioned. I point out that that issue arose on 22 March. I was not asked then nor did I promise to give a considered ruling on that matter. Members should be careful in raising points of order that they accurately recall events in the House. Now that the matter has been raised I will give some consideration to it and come back to the House with a ruling as soon as possible.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2343] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will consider that matter but we will just work through the timetable. I doubt for example that the New Zealand Sign Language Bill will take the full 2 hours of debate given the experience of that bill so far in the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2343] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Could the Leader of the House indicate to us whether if we were to agree to those proposals he would also seek leave for the House to continue its business until the report of the Privileges Committee was fully debated. So rather than breaking on Thursday at 6 o’clock—if it comes to that and it may well do—we would continue to debate the report through to its closure in order that the debate on a Privileges Committee report is not broken by a 3-week adjournment.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2343] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 My understanding is that the report will be tabled on Wednesday. If that is the case then under the Standing Orders it takes priority as the first item of business on Thursday. As the member will be aware the Business Committee has already set down the New Zealand Sign Language Bill for Thursday and people will be coming to the House for that occasion. So if that is the case I will be talking with the parties about whether we could take the Privileges Committee report after the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. I am not expecting that the luncheon will delay the start of the House too much on Thursday next week.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2343] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I am not sure whether I heard correctly but did the Leader of the House indicate that the Privileges Committee report would be dealt with by the House next Thursday?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2343] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill the remaining stages of the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill the Criminal Procedures Bill the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill and the first reading of the Local Government Law Reform Bill. 
As previously indicated the third reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill is set down for Thursday. I understand there may be a Privileges Committee report available for debate that day and as it would normally take priority I will be discussing with the other parties the seeking of leave to ensure that the New Zealand Sign Language Bill is taken first. There should be time on Thursday to deal both with that bill and with the Privileges Committee report. On Thursday the House will sit at the ringing of the bell due to the official luncheon in honour of His Excellency Mr Wen Jiabao Premier of the People’s Republic of China.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2345] 
Business Statement 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have just been reflecting on the information given to the House today by Dr Michael Cullen who is the Leader of the House and the Deputy Prime Minister in which he indicated that he understood that the Privileges Committee would table a report in Parliament on Wednesday and would be debated on Thursday. The Privileges Committee has been meeting over a particular matter. Today the most recent meeting was closed to the public and the determinations of that committee are not public. Given that I as a member of the committee cannot tell members when that report will be tabled how at this stage can he so confidently prepare the House for a debate on the report? He is not a member of the committee and should not have the information. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Obviously reports are given to all members of this House. I was very careful to say “I understand” that the report may be available for debate next Thursday. Those sorts of decisions are discussed in the Business Committee and elsewhere. It is a matter of good order in this House to indicate we have already committed ourselves to an item of business next Thursday and that therefore we should consider how we manage that business in that particular circumstance. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Noting that the Privileges Committee is an important organ of this Parliament I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister can assure us that the Labour and Government-supporting members of that committee have not been in some sort of collusion to predetermine an outcome from that committee? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am sure that is so. I am not sitting on that committee on that particular case for the very obvious reason that I am one of the shareholding Ministers of the organisation that is being charged with a privileges offence. But if the member is trying to tell me that his colleagues never report to his caucus about what goes on in select committees then I would strongly recommend that they adopt that practice in the future.
Tabling of Documents — Wine-box Inquiry 
Tabling of Documents — Wine-box Inquiry 
[Volume:630;Page:2344] 
Tabling of Documents 
Wine-box Inquiry 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table question for written answer No. 4381 from Ken Shirley to Jack Elder about payments made in respect of legal expenses. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Quotations 
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Quotations 
[Volume:630;Page:2343] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Oral Answer—Quotations 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I gave a ruling yesterday on the use of quotations in questions and replies. This was a subject that I had promised the House last week that I would consider—see  
Hansard 
 23 March at page 2136. Following my ruling a point of order was raised about why I had not addressed an issue that also arose last week concerning the capacity in which Ministers can be questioned. I point out that that issue arose on 22 March. I was not asked then nor did I promise to give a considered ruling on that matter. Members should be careful in raising points of order that they accurately recall events in the House. Now that the matter has been raised I will give some consideration to it and come back to the House with a ruling as soon as possible.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2343] 
Thursday 30 March 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill the remaining stages of the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill the Criminal Procedures Bill the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill and the first reading of the Local Government Law Reform Bill. 
As previously indicated the third reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill is set down for Thursday. I understand there may be a Privileges Committee report available for debate that day and as it would normally take priority I will be discussing with the other parties the seeking of leave to ensure that the New Zealand Sign Language Bill is taken first. There should be time on Thursday to deal both with that bill and with the Privileges Committee report. On Thursday the House will sit at the ringing of the bell due to the official luncheon in honour of His Excellency Mr Wen Jiabao Premier of the People’s Republic of China. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I am not sure whether I heard correctly but did the Leader of the House indicate that the Privileges Committee report would be dealt with by the House next Thursday? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 My understanding is that the report will be tabled on Wednesday. If that is the case then under the Standing Orders it takes priority as the first item of business on Thursday. As the member will be aware the Business Committee has already set down the New Zealand Sign Language Bill for Thursday and people will be coming to the House for that occasion. So if that is the case I will be talking with the parties about whether we could take the Privileges Committee report after the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. I am not expecting that the luncheon will delay the start of the House too much on Thursday next week. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Could the Leader of the House indicate to us whether if we were to agree to those proposals he would also seek leave for the House to continue its business until the report of the Privileges Committee was fully debated. So rather than breaking on Thursday at 6 o’clock—if it comes to that and it may well do—we would continue to debate the report through to its closure in order that the debate on a Privileges Committee report is not broken by a 3-week adjournment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will consider that matter but we will just work through the timetable. I doubt for example that the New Zealand Sign Language Bill will take the full 2 hours of debate given the experience of that bill so far in the House.
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2471] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for clauses 1 2 and 3 to be taken together as one debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Simich Clem: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2466] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I remind members of the instruction for the Committee to have the power to consider and if it thinks fit to adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 21. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 21 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2466] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2466] 
Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2466] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill be now read a third time 
.
Mark Ron: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2465] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the financial review of the Department of Corrections. What an interesting time the Law and Order Committee had! This debate I have to put on the record does the work of that committee no justice whatsoever. We have 4 hours to debate the financial reviews of every Government department. Days and days weeks and months of work by committees all come down to a 5-minute speech. That is pretty pathetic given that we tout ourselves as an institution that promotes transparency. 
In the very little time we have let us hit on the one issue New Zealand First raised. Why did we raise this issue of the rehabilitation programmes and their effectiveness? My antennae went up in 2003-04 in response to a glaring omission in the department’s annual report. No rehabilitation quotient was mentioned in the report at all. Come the next year what did we naturally go looking for? We looked for a rehabilitation quotient. We found what we had known all along what we have known for about the 10 years during which I have been in Parliament and what we have heard from countless corrections officers and from people who work in the field trying to turn people round—like Dr Pita Sharples who has done so for years—that the programmes run by the Department of Corrections do not work. We found that for 13 of the 20 programmes being run at the end of 12 months participants who took part in and actually completed the programme—and that is another story—were more likely to reoffend and more likely to be re-imprisoned than if they had never ever done the course at all. That was the revelation New Zealand First put on the table. It was astounding and actually a breath of fresh air to hear the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections Mr Barry Matthews say that that was true. 
It is interesting that since we raised that in the select committee discussed it and pointed to the figures two of those— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time for this debate has ended. 
Report noted.
Mallard Trevor: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2440] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 For reasons that I am happy to explain to the member later and that have to do with State-owned enterprise energy portfolios which I have now delegated to the Hon Mark Burton it would be inappropriate for me to comment to the Committee on the matters that he has raised. 
Report noted.
Choudhary Ashraf: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Choudhary Ashraf: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2425] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to congratulate the Hon Jim Anderton on his roles as Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Fisheries. When we were doing the financial reviews I had an opportunity to go around and talk to farmers and a number of submitters. I looked at Landcorp and visited Asure New Zealand and in talking to them and to AgriQuality and a number of those people I was happily surprised at how much confidence they had in the new Minister of Agriculture. It was a delight to hear farmers saying that although they had a few misgivings about the new Minister in the beginning because in their view he had probably had little to do with farming in the past that had changed. I received very good reviews from a whole lot of these people during the financial reviews of all those Government entities. 
Agriculture is the backbone of this country. We export over 90 percent of what we produce and we have to make sure we keep ahead of other countries in terms of research increasing value for money and increasing quality assurance. Particularly in terms of patents and adding value to our products it is very important that we keep ahead of other nations to make sure that our income keeps coming from export markets. 
I was delighted when I had the opportunity to visit Asure New Zealand and also to talk with AgriQuality board members. When we hear about the increase in productivity achieved in this country over a number of years it is really tremendous. Some years ago about 90 percent of our meat was exported as carcasses but now 90 percent is processed which is added-value. That is great to see. I was very pleased to see that the meat industry and dairy industry are progressing and adding value to our export market. 
Of particular interest to me is biosecurity. That is of very high importance. As an exporting nation particularly in agriculture it is very important to ensure that any products that come into the country do not present any biosecurity risk. We recall the false scare about foot-and-mouth on Waiheke Island last year. We have to act quickly and ensure such problems do not occur here. 
I do not want to say a lot more. Suffice to say I am delighted the financial reviews of these entities and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry show they are doing a great job.
Robertson H V Ross: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2414] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Standing Orders provide for the financial review debate to be the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill. The debate is organised into three distinct parts. It commences with a debate on the annual financial statements of the Government as reported on by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Once this debate is disposed of the Committee debates individual financial reviews of the departments and Offices of Parliament as reported on by select committees. There is a list of financial reviews available for debate on the Table along with copies of the select committee reports for members. 
The debate on the Government’s financial position may be fairly wide ranging but the debates on the individual financial reviews of departments and Offices of Parliament should be relevant to their performance in the 2004-05 financial year and their current operations. Members should note that they may have no more than two calls on each financial review. 
Four hours is allowed for these two segments of the financial review debate. At the conclusion of the 4 hours a single question is put on the provisions of the bill. There is no amendment or debate on this question. The Chairperson reports the bill to the House and it is set down for its third reading forthwith. There is no debate on the third reading. 
I ask members to turn to the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government. The question is that the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the year ended 30 June be noted.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Human Rights—United Nations Special Rapporteur’s Report 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Human Rights—United Nations Special Rapporteur’s Report 
[Volume:630;Page:2414] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Tariana Turia and Dr Pita Sharples seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 a report of the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples. The release of the report appears to be a matter of recent occurrence but I am not convinced that the report from the United Nations body is a matter for which there is ministerial responsibility even though the subject matter of the report clearly relates to matters of obvious interest to the Government of New Zealand. Nevertheless whether or not there is a ministerial responsibility consideration of this report does not require the pre-arranged business of the House to be set aside for it today. It can be considered over a longer time frame than that. I am therefore not prepared to accept the application.
Urgent Debates Declined — Human Rights—United Nations Special Rapporteur’s Report 
Urgent Debates Declined — Human Rights—United Nations Special Rapporteur’s Report 
[Volume:630;Page:2414] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Human Rights—United Nations Special Rapporteur’s Report 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Tariana Turia and Dr Pita Sharples seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 a report of the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples. The release of the report appears to be a matter of recent occurrence but I am not convinced that the report from the United Nations body is a matter for which there is ministerial responsibility even though the subject matter of the report clearly relates to matters of obvious interest to the Government of New Zealand. Nevertheless whether or not there is a ministerial responsibility consideration of this report does not require the pre-arranged business of the House to be set aside for it today. It can be considered over a longer time frame than that. I am therefore not prepared to accept the application.
Bennett David: Tabling of Documents — Wine-box Inquiry 
Bennett David: Tabling of Documents — Wine-box Inquiry 
[Volume:630;Page:2414] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the answer to question for written answer No. 4381 that shows that the Government has spent a total of $1.441 million on legal fees— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.
Tabling of Documents — Wine-box Inquiry 
Tabling of Documents — Wine-box Inquiry 
[Volume:630;Page:2414] 
Tabling of Documents 
Wine-box Inquiry 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the answer to question for written answer No. 4381 that shows that the Government has spent a total of $1.441 million on legal fees— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2413] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 Madam Speaker I am sorry I did not do this at the end of question No. 11; you moved to question No. 12 very quickly. I seek leave of the House to table a petition from the bee industry to Parliament expressing the concerns that I mentioned earlier. 
Document not tabled. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I seek leave of the House to table some documents from a pan-industry group based on good science showing why it would not be a good idea to allow honey imports into New Zealand. 
Document not tabled. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I seek leave of the House to table a media report by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials stating that they are very concerned about the heat treatment process and that they could not guarantee that it will have the success— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Any objection? Yes there is objection.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2413] 
12.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Information Technology 
: What feedback has he received on the Government’s promotion of information technology? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister for Information Technology) 
: 
 Last week New Zealand hosted the successful Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) conference which was attended by over 750 international experts. New Zealand also chaired a parallel meeting of Pacific communications Ministers that decided to support a regional digital strategy based on a Wellington declaration which included investigation of joint purchasing of satellite bandwidth and a regional approach to anti-spam. 
Maryan Street 
: What feedback has the Minister received on broadband uptake in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: During the Icann conference I met with Dr Vint Cerf the Chairman of Icann and well known as the “father of the Internet”. He told me that New Zealand’s broadband performance was far too low and urged the Government to accelerate development in that area. The Government is currently undertaking a stocktake of the telecommunications regulatory environment. Announcements on the outcome of that process will be made by mid-year. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How confident is the Minister of reaching the targets set down in the Digital Strategy which he released of New Zealand being in the top half of the OECD for broadband uptake by next year and in the top quartile for broadband uptake by the year 2010? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have a high degree of confidence that measures being developed within the regulatory stocktake will improve New Zealand’s performance towards those goals. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: My question was not about how much progress had been made towards those goals; I guess that if we made one position move the Minister would claim progress. My question was simply this: how confident is he that we will meet those targets laid out in the Digital Strategy of our being in the top half of the OECD by next year— given that we are 22nd at present—and in the top quartile by 2010? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is very pleasing to have the Opposition’s support for the contention that we are 22nd out of 30 and that that is not good enough. This Government is determined to improve New Zealand’s broadband performance and is moving expeditiously to that end. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How can the Minister claim that the Government is “moving expeditiously” when the issue of broadband penetration has been an issue for debate ever since this Government came to power it is now heading towards its 7th year in office and the Prime Minister in the Prime Minister’s statement this year said that the Government is “looking into it”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I would have thought it was in that member’s interest not to have that question answered as he was the Minister who presided over 10 years of inaction when his Government did nothing to improve the telecommunications environment—and he was famous for it.