edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5756] 
6.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: How many gangs are known by police to exist in New Zealand and what is the estimated number of affiliated members for each of these gangs? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: The Minister of Police is advised that a survey of organised crime in 2004 identified 69 gangs with 32 of them being motorcycle gangs. The police have also advised that it is not possible with the ever-changing face of gangs to estimate the number of affiliates. 
Ron Mark 
: How many gang affiliates were apprehended in the last financial year and how does that figure compare with the number apprehended in previous years? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: To the best of my knowledge gang affiliation is not recorded against the names of convicted offenders. However the member will know that there is a high correlation between gang membership and criminal offending. He will also know that our jails are full of offenders who are affiliated to gangs. 
Martin Gallagher 
: How is the Government addressing the youth gang situation in South Auckland? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are a number of different types of gangs obviously and the youth gang problem is different in nature from the problem of gangs that are involved in organised crime. But it is a serious problem in South Auckland and in Otahuhu. An action plan was launched last month in Counties-Manukau and Otahuhu. That plan has the police working with non-governmental agencies local bodies and communities. It involves the setting up of youth action teams. It involves proactivity on the part of the police in dispersing large gatherings where violence is threatening. It involves the employment of youth workers responsible for juveniles who have been picked up by the police. It involves the vigorous policing of liquor bans and a series of other intervention and prevention measures run across a number of different Government agencies. 
Ron Mark 
: How many of the gang affiliates apprehended in the last financial year were charged under section 98A of the Crimes Act under which participation in a criminal gang is punishable by up to 5 years in prison; and how does that number compare with the number charged each year since the passage of the Transnational Organised Crime Bill passed by a Labour Government in 2002? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Section 98A does make participation in an organised criminal gang a criminal offence with the police being required to prove that the individual knows that his or her participation contributes to the occurrence of criminal activity. My understanding is that that section was used on a dozen occasions in 2004-05 and 18 times last year. The reason the police do not use that provision more often—among other reasons—is that if it is possible to charge the gang member with a violent sexual or drug offence they will use that provision because it carries a higher maximum sentence.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5755] 
4.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What progress has been made on establishing the “independent inquiry into issues around local government rates funding” that he announced on 23 August 2006? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Good progress has been made. Consultation has been undertaken with a range of interested parties and I have taken time to give careful consideration to the suggestions of other stakeholders and interested individuals such as the member who asks this question. I anticipate announcing the terms of reference shortly. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is the expectation of ratepayers of rates relief from the Government a bit like the expectation that taxpayers have of the Labour Party ever paying back the money it owes—that it really is on the never-never and it is not going to happen? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can only say to the member that I anticipate the suit size I have shed in pursuit of a robust inquiry will ultimately bear more tangible benefit to the public of New Zealand than his extended forays on to the dance floor which caused 12 weeks of parliamentary delay of his supposedly important parliamentary rates capping bill. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Does the Minister agree with the Local Government Forum when it says: “It is particularly unfair that the Crown makes no contribution for its land especially as local authority infrastructure can be put under severe pressure by the visitors who are attracted to national parks and other reserves.”; and will the inquiry address this burden on those who pay rates? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: When the inquiry looks at the burden of rates I am sure it will also be taking into account the fact that central government contributes 13 percent of the finances of local government—the highest it has ever been. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Has the Minister met with every party that has requested a meeting over the proposed terms of reference for the inquiry; if so has he met with ACT? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can confirm that I have had meetings with any party that has sought a meeting; I can equally confirm that I have had no such meeting with ACT members—they did not ask for one. I received a letter from Mr Hide and I replied to it.
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5751] 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement in relation to Noel Ingram’s report into allegations concerning Taito Phillip Field that “Dr Ingram found that no conflict existed or appeared to exist between Mr Field’s private interests and the use of his influence as a Minister.”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What is the Prime Minister’s response to the assertion of Mr Sunan Siriwan made on Television One’s  
Sunday 
 programme that Taito Phillip Field then a Minister in her Government promised Mr Siriwan a work permit for New Zealand in return for slave labour in Samoa? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My response is that all such allegations should go to the police. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister see any irony in the fact that her Government which pretends to have such strong views about employment law has amongst its number a man who employed Mr Siriwan and his partner in exchange for food and board? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not have any evidence of an employment relationship. I suggest the member take his matters up with the police. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What is the Prime Minister’s response to the revelation on Television One’s  
Sunday 
 programme that Mr Siriwan has sworn an affidavit alleging that he was told what to say to the Ingram inquiry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My response is that that allegation has gone to the police. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What faith can New Zealanders have in the Prime Minister’s half-million-dollar Ingram inquiry in light of the clear allegation that one of her Labour members of Parliament pressured a key witness to lie to the inquiry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If the member has that concern he should put it to the police. I note that he generally has no confidence in the police—this Government does. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister now regret setting up a toothless inquiry with weak terms of reference which was designed to cover up activities of one of her MPs and former Ministers; and does she wish to express regret to the New Zealand public for the way in which she has handled this matter? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There was obviously no such inquiry and I repeat Dr Ingram’s words: “Even if I had possessed the power to administer oaths and to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents the process of inquiry may not have been significantly more satisfactory.”
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill—Parliamentary Service Advice 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill—Parliamentary Service Advice 
[Volume:634;Page:5751] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I would note that that is a matter that is properly to be put before the Parliamentary Service Commission and that will be done so tomorrow in accordance with what the member has indicated.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill—Parliamentary Service Advice 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill—Parliamentary Service Advice 
[Volume:634;Page:5751] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is no secret that later this afternoon the Government will seek to introduce under urgency a bill called the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill. It is our understanding that the Parliamentary Service gave considerable advice to the people who were responsible for the preparation of this bill. 
The Parliamentary Service is there for the service of all members of Parliament and therefore it would be reasonable to say that the Parliamentary Service has a somewhat more representative role than any other Government agency when it comes to offering advice—in fact uniquely so. So I take this opportunity to express our deep disappointment that the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service notified us yesterday that he was unable to give us copies of the advice that had been supplied to those producing this bill because as he put it the Parliamentary Service had to protect the interests of the Government which was preparing this particular bill. At no time has the Parliamentary Service been a vehicle of the Government; nor has it been there to protect the interests of the Government. 
Madam Speaker I ask you to consider very very carefully the decision that was made by the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service. The reality is that we have now been denied the opportunity to consider that advice because at this point we still have not seen it. Madam Speaker we would appreciate your coming back to the House even perhaps during the time that the House is in urgency and telling us whether it is your view that the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service was in the right to refuse to release information that in reality belongs to all members of Parliament.
presentation of report 
presentation of report 
[Volume:634;Page:5767] 
presentation of report 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I hereby present a report on unappropriated expenditure on Vote Parliamentary Service for the period from 1 July 1989 until the day on which the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill comes into force. I move  
That that paper be published. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Motion agreed to.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:634;Page:5767] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill 
. 
This motion is moved in order that the House may address as quickly as possible the uncertainty around the legal status of past and current appropriations and it will also give the chance for the House to debate the Auditor-General’s report. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Motion agreed to.
Points of Order — Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill—Parliamentary Service Advice 
Points of Order — Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill—Parliamentary Service Advice 
[Volume:634;Page:5751] 
Tuesday 17 October 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill—Parliamentary Service Advice 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is no secret that later this afternoon the Government will seek to introduce under urgency a bill called the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill. It is our understanding that the Parliamentary Service gave considerable advice to the people who were responsible for the preparation of this bill. 
The Parliamentary Service is there for the service of all members of Parliament and therefore it would be reasonable to say that the Parliamentary Service has a somewhat more representative role than any other Government agency when it comes to offering advice—in fact uniquely so. So I take this opportunity to express our deep disappointment that the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service notified us yesterday that he was unable to give us copies of the advice that had been supplied to those producing this bill because as he put it the Parliamentary Service had to protect the interests of the Government which was preparing this particular bill. At no time has the Parliamentary Service been a vehicle of the Government; nor has it been there to protect the interests of the Government. 
Madam Speaker I ask you to consider very very carefully the decision that was made by the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service. The reality is that we have now been denied the opportunity to consider that advice because at this point we still have not seen it. Madam Speaker we would appreciate your coming back to the House even perhaps during the time that the House is in urgency and telling us whether it is your view that the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service was in the right to refuse to release information that in reality belongs to all members of Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I would note that that is a matter that is properly to be put before the Parliamentary Service Commission and that will be done so tomorrow in accordance with what the member has indicated.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13191] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Peachey Allan: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peachey Allan: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13190] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the call in enabling this debate to carry on because these matters are important to the future of New Zealand. One should reflect on why the Government keeps trying to shut down the debate. 
I want to finish my contribution because I have a very very important point to make. We have to see Part 2 in the context of the future that may lie out there for the New Zealand economy. One has to wonder why a Government—at a time when everybody is talking about the abilities knowledge skills and attributes that graduates will need in the future to be successful in a modern market-based knowledge-driven economy—wants to plan to restrict the universities in particular from the ability to produce that sort of graduate. 
When we look at the provisions in Part 2 and consider them together with Part 1 and the rest of the bill we have to ask ourselves how the tertiary education sector which this bill seeks to shape control design and plan—that word again—will contribute to producing both the quality and attitude of graduates that this country will need whether they be from universities polytechs or trade training organisations. 
I have heard Labour members defend Part 2 and talk about rationalising resources getting the best result out of them and all the rest of it. That is a smokescreen for the real purpose of this bill. Much of the purpose of this bill is what lies behind so much Government legislation that is brought to the House. This bill is not about the best outcome for New Zealanders or about strengthening the tertiary sector; it is all about Government control. For that reason alone it is vital that the Committee votes the bill down.
Soper Lesley: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Soper Lesley: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13190] 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13185] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13185] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13184] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 161 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to section 159YO in clause 17 be agreed to.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13184] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 161 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to section 159YC in clause 17 be agreed to.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13184] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 161 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to section 159YA in clause 17 be agreed to.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13184] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 161 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to section 159V in clause 17 be agreed to.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13183] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
11ANew subsection added to section 159G 
Section 159G is amended by adding the following paragraph: “(d) acknowledge the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13183] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 161 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 11 be agreed to.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13183] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to add after section (3)(e)(ii) of section 159ABA: 
(iii)in consultation with local hapu and iwi Maori staff and students:
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13182] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 161 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to section 159AC in clause 8 to omit subsection (3) and substitute new subsection (3) be agreed to.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13182] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 161 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to section 159AC in clause 8 to omit subsection (2)(a) and substitute new subsection (2)(a) be agreed to.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13182] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 161 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to section 159AA in clause 6 to omit subsection (4) and substitute new subsection (4) be agreed to.
Ririnui Mita: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13182] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 161 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to section159AA in clause 6 to omit subsection (3)(a) and substitute new subsection (3)(a) be agreed to.
Soper Lesley: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Soper Lesley: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13181] 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We have had 13 speakers including three doubles. But you have nine amendments and you opened the debate so I think you should close it Dr Paul Hutchison.
Hughes Darren: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13179] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member’s knowledge of the Standing Orders is impressive and delightful but the most important arbiter on this is you alone Mr Chairperson. The motion that I have put is not a debatable one but that is what the member has now sought to do by—[ 
Interruption 
] A member is now interjecting on my point of order as well. So maybe Mr Chairperson you could also tell Mr Bennett some of the rules of Parliament. But this is not a debatable motion. The motion is put and you either accept it or do not accept it and your decision should not be challenged by any member in Government or in Opposition. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Mr Hughes for his assistance. I do not need any more assistance on this one but I think that the Committee would like to hear from Te Ururoa Flavell.
Guy Nathan: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13179] 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Under Standing Order 137(3)— 
Hon Member 
: What does that say? 
NATHAN GUY 
: It talks about closure motions. If there is a lot of interest as there is in this debate on Part 1 it is over to you to decline it Mr Chairperson. I urge you to consider that there is a lot of interest in the debate and many members are seeking calls.
Hughes Darren: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13179] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pettis Jill: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13174] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No we have a couple more speakers.
Mackey Moana: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13173] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Choudhary Ashraf: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Choudhary Ashraf: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13170] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak briefly to the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill because it is a fantastic bill that is designed to reform the system for planning funding and monitoring the provision of the tertiary education system. 
Clearly this Government is committed to quality education. Under this bill the Government is clearly moving from the “bums on seats” system to a quality education system and we are committed to quality tertiary education that is relevant for today’s New Zealand economy and social well-being. This bill will provide a tertiary system that will better fulfil New Zealand’s needs yet at the same time give better value for money for taxpayers and students. Clearly this bill allows us to move away from the annually funded demand-led system to a system funded 3-yearly which will be a much better way of giving stability to our education system so that teachers lecturers and students can be surer of the courses they are following. The bill will also streamline the processes supporting the operation of the tertiary education system in New Zealand thus strengthening the stakeholders involved. 
I totally support this bill. We had a good discussion at the select committee where we had a lot of input from the tertiary education sector and stakeholders and the committee made quite a few changes to the bill that clearly made it much better. With those few words I commend the bill to the Committee.
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13169] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 4 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13168] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There were amendments in the name of Nicky Wagner. These have been ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee.
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13168] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit “30 June” and substitute “1 July”.
Pettis Jill: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13168] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mackey Moana: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13167] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Wagner Nicky: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13166] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to clause 4 “Expiry”. If Labour is going to force this bill through I want it to expire as soon as possible. I have presented 31 amendments on the expiry clause and those 31 amendments have 31 different dates. They start from 1 January 2008 and go through to 31 January 2008. The reason I picked 1 January is that it is a significant date; it is the day that the Electoral Finance Bill comes into play. In that legislation we have something that threatens our democracy in New Zealand. It is probably the biggest threat we have ever had to democracy. It is a double jeopardy to freedom of speech and possibly to good government. It is probably the greatest threat in our history. 
The Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill is absolutely bad enough by itself. It should not exist at all. Labour is very keen to tell us that this bill is nothing much and just restores the conditions that existed before the Auditor-General’s review of parliamentary spending in the 2005 election. That is blatantly untrue. This bill will make the spending that is best epitomised by Labour’s pledge card and also any form of soft electioneering quite acceptable and quite legal. That was definitely not legal before the Auditor-General’s review. Parliamentary spending for electioneering has never been allowed. It cannot have been legal before the Auditor-General’s review; otherwise he would not have rejected it. 
The public of New Zealand those beyond the beltway contrary to the Prime Minister’s belief were appalled when Labour expected them to pay for its pledge card. The public felt very strongly that Labour’s propaganda and spin should be paid for by Labour and they fully supported the idea that Labour should pay the money back. Does this Government really believe that in 2008 the public will suddenly have a change of heart? Why do Labour MPs think that they have the right to pass legislation that the people of New Zealand have very strongly indicated they do not want? Not only should this bill expire as soon as possible but Labour should never have insulted the public of New Zealand by even proposing it. 
Labour is very keen to assure the people of New Zealand that this is only a temporary bill. Yes temporary—with its original date it expires in June 2009. It exists only for long enough to give Labour a crutch to try to win the 2008 election. So there is no comfort to the public in this type of “temporary”. This bill expires not because Labour has suddenly got a conscience but because it will have had the benefit of the taxpayer’s money to campaign for an election that it is desperate to win.
Dyson Ruth: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 16 August 
Dyson Ruth: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 16 August 
[Volume:643;Page:13161] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I want to correct an answer to oral question No. 12 on 16 August 2007 and two related written questions—Nos 14713 and 14471—all three from Anne Tolley. In my answer to the oral question—and consequently used by the member for obvious reasons in her written questions—I quoted the number of notifications to Child Youth and Family for the year ended 30 June 2007 as being 73326. With my apologies to the member the figure was 75326.
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13160] 
12.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What reports if any has he received on the proposed emissions trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 A number of independent reports have supported the scheme’s design. To name but two the International Energy Agency—the IEA—in its recent report gave the scheme a positive review and Terry Tamminen who has been an adviser to Arnold Schwarzenegger on climate change recently endorsed it on his visit to New Zealand. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What other reports has the Minister received on the proposed emissions trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have received reports that this scheme is amongst a number of emissions trading schemes around the world. A large number of countries have already signed up to such schemes. That includes the many countries in the European Union—between 20 and 30. Its scheme commenced in 2005. Other parts of the world that have a scheme in place or are developing one include Norway Switzerland various states in the United States and of course Australia. All of New Zealand’s activity has led Gordon Brown to request our Prime Minister to get New Zealand to join the International Carbon Action Partnership and this is good for New Zealand because it ensures that we are able to advance our interests as we help the world.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13159] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise for not raising this point of order the moment it happened but I was so gobsmacked that it has taken me a moment to work out what just went on. At the end of the previous set of questions I believe I heard you as Speaker invite the Minister to seek leave to table documents. That is something that the Speaker should not be involved in. Members have a perfect right to seek leave to table documents but where the Speaker invites them to do so it implies a relationship between the Speaker and in this case the Government that could be seen to be inappropriate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have heard enough. The Minister in answer to one of his questions indicated he was going to table documents. Rather than interrupt the next questioner I asked people whether they were going to table documents because often members unfortunately forget. That was what happened.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13158] 
10.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: What Government initiatives have been put in place to address food-borne illness in New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 Given that this week is Foodsafe Week there are many food safety promotional activities being undertaken around the country including television advertisements and brochures emphasising the importance of safe handling of food at home. I was pleased to present the Food Safety For Life Award to three students from Hastings Girls’ High School this morning for their clever and original advertisement stressing the importance of clean hands when handling food. The primary initiative of Government to reduce food-borne illness has been the establishment of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority as a stand-alone agency and its extensive programme including the campylobacter strategy. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister please advise why it has been necessary to develop a campylobacter strategy and what does it involve? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The campylobacter strategy aims to halve the number of human cases of food-borne campylobacter infections over the next 5 years. This is necessary as New Zealand has one of the highest notified rates of campylobacter in the OECD. The poultry industry has agreed to meet a 90 percent reduction in the number of bacteria on chicken carcases from 1 April 2008. However it is important that there is vigilance across the entire food chain and that consumers play their part as well by adhering to the four C’s—clean cook cover and chill—all of which are vitally important in reducing food-borne illness. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Will the Minister consider as part of her safe-handling strategy requiring large warning labels to be placed on all fresh chicken sold in New Zealand stating “May contain campylobacter” given the University of Otago’s recently released research that found that most chickens in New Zealand are contaminated and that New Zealand should seriously consider banning the sale of fresh chicken for human consumption as a result? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do not think that labelling chickens in that regard would be of any assistance at all. The assertion that the member makes is quite correct—we do have an extremely high rate of campylobacter within our chickens. But I want to say to the House—and I think it is important given that we are heading into the barbecue season—that cooking chicken properly prevents the campylobacter from infecting humans by way of consumption.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13156] 
8.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is the Government taking to ensure all young people achieve their potential and make a positive contribution to New Zealand’s economic transformation and social development? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I recently received a report from the Ministry of Education that shows it is on track to halve the number of early leaving exemptions it will approve this year. In order to ensure that no young person is left behind the Ministry of Education is working with Career Services to develop personalised learning and career plans for many of those who previously would have been allowed to leave school early. These plans will provide a rational and practical step to encourage students to remain in and engaged with school and further education. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What else is the Government doing to ensure all young people are equipped for our 21st century economy and society? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: As the Prime Minister told the Labour Party conference recently attachment to and engagement in education is critical to equip young people to participate in New Zealand’s economic transformation. Our Government has introduced many innovative policies like 20 hours’ free early childhood education Young Apprenticeships and Modern Apprenticeships to keep young people engaged in learning. But there is more to come. For example through the recently ratified secondary teachers’ collective agreement we have agreed to a project that looks at the future of secondary schooling and our new curriculum enables teachers to equip their students with the skills and competencies they need in order to succeed in the 21st century.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13150] 
4.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What Labour-led Government assistance is there to help New Zealand firms take advantage of new business opportunities overseas? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Nearly 600 companies around New Zealand have signed up for the Government’s Market Development Assistance scheme in the last year. From an initial funding pool of $6.7 million in January 2005 the scheme has grown now to more than $50 million annually. That is $50 million of taxpayer support to mostly small or medium-sized exporters to help them break into new markets so that back home they can grow further and faster than would otherwise be the case. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What advice has the Minister received about when we will see the beneficial effects from this scheme—will it be immediate or will it take a longer time? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answer is really both. There are immediate gains for some exporters but market development is generally a longer-term undertaking as any exporter will confirm. Offshore markets take time to research to enter and to expand into. Our exporting community seeks to build strong and sustainable offshore markets and now it has a Government that will pick up half the tab of doing so. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Why is New Zealand Trade and Enterprise not prepared to establish measurement mechanisms for the amount of money it expends on export support unlike its Australian counterpart Austrade—for then we would know what money was worthwhile and what money was wasted? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member misrepresents New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. It is very keen on an evaluation mechanism and indeed the first results from such a mechanism will be available in I think June 2008. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister agree that the Ministry of Economic Development’s successful Buy Kiwi Made programme has provided a greater opportunity for New Zealand manufacturers to sell their products locally rather than export them overseas and that the result of this is more local jobs kept here more money returned and retained in our communities and lower transport costs—all this better than if we had kept going with an ever-increasing dependence on imports? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is right generally speaking that the value of an import substitution is equal to the value of an export and she makes a very good point. We must be careful however not to be tripped up by the tyranny of the word “or”. We must do both.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:643;Page:13145] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the third reading of the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill all stages of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) the remaining stages of the Building Amendment Bill and the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill and on Thursday probably the second reading of the Electoral Finance Bill. Wednesday of course is a members’ day.
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 16 August 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 16 August 
[Volume:643;Page:13161] 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 12 16 August 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I want to correct an answer to oral question No. 12 on 16 August 2007 and two related written questions—Nos 14713 and 14471—all three from Anne Tolley. In my answer to the oral question—and consequently used by the member for obvious reasons in her written questions—I quoted the number of notifications to Child Youth and Family for the year ended 30 June 2007 as being 73326. With my apologies to the member the figure was 75326.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:643;Page:13145] 
Thursday 15 November 2007 
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 third reading of the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill all stages of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) the remaining stages of the Building Amendment Bill and the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill and on Thursday probably the second reading of the Electoral Finance Bill. Wednesday of course is a members’ day.
Yates Dianne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Yates Dianne: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12977] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. I thank everybody who worked on the bill particularly those who took part in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee consideration. We have heard a lot of speeches from members who were not on the select committee. I particularly want to thank the select committee members and staff for the work that was done on the bill. 
I note that we had 35 submitters on the bill and that we heard 14 of those submitters. We took a great deal of notice. In fact the committee acted very very carefully on this legislation. We looked at the balance between protecting New Zealanders against terrorism and making sure New Zealanders are safe— 
Debate interrupted.