edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15829] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I just say for the interest of the people of New Zealand who are presently in gridlock on the motorways of our country and are listening to this debate that we are debating the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2). The title is the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) and one could presume that there was a “Maori Purposes Bill (No 1)”. I will just explain what happened to the No. 1 bill. Some members of the Maori Affairs Committee believe that it went a little bit too far in terms of the omnibus nature of these bills. I say to the New Zealanders who are listening to and watching this debate that although the changes being made to one or two of the pieces of legislation in this bill are small they are very important changes for Maoridom and indeed for New Zealand. 
Previous speakers have made reference to the proposed changes in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and have made reference to the author of that legislation Matiu Rata. I am sure that if he were with us today he would accept the challenge of defining what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are as that term is articulated in a number of the Acts of Parliament affecting our country. 
I think that because of the omnibus nature of this bill it is only proper that the title Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) be retained. Kia ora. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Amendment Bill the Maori Trust Boards Amendment Bill the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 3)  
divided into Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Amendment Bill| Maori Trust Boards Amendment Bill| Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill (No 2)| Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 3)|  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper197. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Hereora Dave: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15828] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I want to take just a short call on this part. I suppose the Maori Affairs Committee’s consideration of the amendment to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was not highlighted much in its discussion but I think it is necessary that we mention it in the Committee stage. Section 277 is amended to indicate that it does not apply to Maori incorporations that had gross revenue of $25000 or less for their most recently completed financial year. I think that amendment is a necessary one. It is basically to tidy up an inconsistency that surrounds a typographical error in the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and an erroneous cross-reference that inserted a new provision into the wrong section of the principal Act. I did think it was necessary that I take a call to ensure that that is highlighted to the House. 
Part 4 agreed to.
Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15827] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I thank the Minister in the chair the Hon Parekura Horomia for responding to my question. However I ask a further question in relation to the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal. Can the Minister tell us how many appointed members sit in on each hearing? If there is only one member per hearing then is the Minister suggesting that 15 hearings are going on around the country at the moment? If that is not the case then I seek clarification about this issue because I think it is very important. 
We are talking about the timely consideration of Treaty of Waitangi claims and although this amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 is a step towards that by increasing the membership of the tribunal the effectiveness of this increase will be awarded only by the number of sittings that take place. I wonder whether the Minister as a matter of courtesy might take a call in response to that question. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15825] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. I am talking to Part 3 of the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) which makes changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. The main point of this part is to increase the number of members on the tribunal from 16 to 20. I think that is laudable but I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Parekura Horomia whether the 16 current positions have been filled. Has there been a full appointment of 16 tribunal members? There is no point in increasing the number to 20 if we have not filled the 16 positions. I must say that this very point has been overlooked during the course of this debate. 
The other point I want to make about the increase of the tribunal membership from 16 to 20 is that although it might be intended to increase the resources this bill does not say that. I just point that out. There is the expectation that if we increase the size of the tribunal then the resources must follow. Quite clearly as the closing date for the lodging of historical claims approaches it is important that we have a tribunal that is suitably resourced to deal with the claims and to do so in a timely manner without prejudicing the durability of those settlements. 
I ought to say though that in order for the tribunal to carry out its duties it must give due regard to what the Act says are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and of course I cannot go on without making reference to those undefined principles that are now appearing in a whole raft of legislation that emanates from this House. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Introduce a bill. 
PITA PARAONE 
: New Zealand First did try to introduce a bill. Unfortunately we did not get the support of the House not least of all from the member for Otaki. However as the Minister of Statistics he might be able to produce some figures that will give some validation to our claim. I just wanted to point that out because I think that that is a very important part of this bill and I hope the Minister will take a call on it.
Hereora Dave: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15825] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I have a couple of comments in relation to Part 3 of the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2). In previous debates on this bill members of the Maori Affairs Committee have all congratulated each other on the collective work we have done and on the nature in which we have been working and continue to work. From time to time as we have just witnessed one member jumps out of the loop and expresses some negativity about the Government. But at the end of the day collectively the committee worked very well in dealing with the issues surrounding this bill. 
Part 3 is about an extension of a discussion the committee had late last year about the proposed closing date of 1 September 2008 for historical Treaty claims and about the Government’s intention to have them resolved by 2020. What I am alluding to is that Part 3 is about the Government’s intention to resource that process by increasing the number of Waitangi Tribunal members from 16 to 20. 
I do think it is necessary as we will be faced with a lot of negotiations surrounding claims that we are mindful that we are adequately resourcing the process so that we end up with settlements that are enduring. It is I think quite important to make sure that that issue is brought to the Committee’s attention. This is about adequate resources and the Government’s intention to ensure that we follow that path.
Simich Clem: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15821] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate on this part includes debate on schedule 1.
Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15819] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. On behalf of New Zealand First I want to make a contribution to this particular bill and talk to Part 1 which covers clauses 3 to 8. I will elaborate on some of the things that the previous speaker touched on particularly in reference to the name change. Being a Maori I can understand the reason for wanting to change the name from Te Mauri o Maniapoto to Te Kaumatua Kaunihera o Maniapoto because in terms of the word “mauri” itself—if I can just use the Maori phrase to describe this word: “he kupu tino hohonu”—it has more than just an ordinary meaning. “Mauri” is talking about the life force the life essence of in this case Maniapoto. For a group of people to have placed on them the responsibility for the mauri of their tribe may be a little bit beyond what one would expect so I can understand the need or the reason for wanting to change the word to “kaumatua”. I think that that in itself actually reflects the importance that kaumatua can play in the life of their iwi in these days and I certainly want to support the reason for the change. 
I also make the point that this change was made at the request of the board. I can understand why the board would want to make this request given the deep meaning that the word “mauri” has and to place that sort of responsibility on kaumatua on those whom we would regard as mere mortals is something that I do not think should happen in spite of whatever their status—their mana—within their tribes might be. New Zealand First certainly supports the intention of the name change. 
I want to refer to the membership of the board. The bill states that the board will consist of 15 persons. In particular clause 6(c) states: “1 member appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister of Maori Affairs nominated by and representing Te Arikinui;”. I would have thought that Te Arikinui had the authority without having to cede to a Minister of the Crown with all due respect and without demeaning the office of the Governor-General to have a direct responsibility in terms of nominating his or her representative on this board. I initially had the same thought with regard to Te Kaumatua Kaunihera o Maniapoto but then I could not put it in the same position as that of Te Arikinui. Then again who am I to contradict what quite clearly the members who represent Maniapoto through their trust board had asked to be done? 
I cannot see anything else in Part 1 that we should be concerned about other than to say that unlike other Maori trust boards this board will continue to maintain its entity and its responsibilities for its iwi.
Guy Nathan: Appointments — Chief Ombudsman 
Guy Nathan: Appointments — Chief Ombudsman 
[Volume:646;Page:15802] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 National supports the appointment of Ms Beverley Wakem as Chief Ombudsman and I think it is appropriate for the House and for those people listening if I talk about the very important role of the Ombudsmen in our society. Earlier on this week the House appropriated money to three areas that sit under the Officers of Parliament—that is the Auditor-General the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the Ombudsmen. For those listening and for those members in the House who do not realise the Ombudsman was first appointed in 1962 under the Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act and in essence has been an evolving position through this Parliament over the last few decades. 
I think it is important to touch on some of those movements over time when New Zealand has been evolving as a country. In 1968 the role of the Ombudsmen moved into education and hospital boards and they could make all sorts of inquiries of that nature. In 1975 when the Ombudsman Act evolved to encompass local government agencies the Ombudsmen had an important role as they also had when the Official Information Act was passed in 1982 in that they could do investigations and review complaints to do with all sorts of ministries of the Crown and central government agencies. In 1987 the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act came into force and in 2000 the Protected Disclosures Act which is the whistleblowers legislation came into force. 
I know from sitting on the Officers of Parliament Committee that the Ombudsmen do a big job. Over the last few years their workload has increased considerably. They have a staff of about 50 now and do some very very good work. The Ombudsmen’s investigations that are carried out are conducted free and conducted in private. Beverley Wakem had the endorsement of the whole of the House I believe when her appointment went through the Officers of Parliament Committee earlier this week on 14 April. She has been acting in her capacity as the Chief Ombudsman following on from the late John Belgrave who passed away sadly on 3 December 2007. 
I want to touch on Mr Belgrave—in particular when he became quite a public figure in 2005. He rocketed to national prominence when he forced the Prime Minister Helen Clark to release the Treasury costings on the controversial interest-free student loan programme. The Prime Minister reluctantly did so and it was revealed that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer the Hon Dr Michael Cullen had grossly underestimated the cost of the programme. 
National today supports the appointment of Ms Beverley Wakem as Chief Ombudsman.
Cullen Michael: Appointments — Chief Ombudsman 
Cullen Michael: Appointments — Chief Ombudsman 
[Volume:646;Page:15802] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 3(4) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 this House recommends His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Beverley Anne Wakem CBE Ombudsman of Wellington as Chief Ombudsman. 
 Beverley Wakem will be well known to members of the House. Her early career after study at Victoria University and the University of Kentucky was in the broadcasting business where she began in 1963. She was of course chief executive of Radio New Zealand from 1984 to 1991. 
She then spent a number of years in the private sector with Wrightson Ltd as firstly commercial director and then general manager of human resources and corporate affairs. She was appointed by the then National Government to the Higher Salaries Commission in September 1997—now of course the Remuneration Authority. She was reappointed to that body in 2001 and again in 2004 and she held a number of other Government appointments and private sector directorships. 
In March 2005 she became an Ombudsman and she has served in that office with distinction over the last 3 and a bit years. She is clearly the senior person now in the Office of the Ombudsmen and is well qualified to take over the role of Chief Ombudsman. This process has been through a broad consultation with other parties in the House and I gather there is unanimous support for her appointment.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15801] 
12.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What action has she taken to assist people who have been affected by the Blue Chip liquidations? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I have been closely monitoring the Blue Chip situation. One of the recurring themes has been the need to access advice. Thanks to the generous support of the Institute of Chartered Accountants a freephone line has been established by the Companies Office which enables a matching process to occur whereby Blue Chip victims are matched with a member of the institute who lives in their region. Those members have volunteered to give free advice to worried investors. People have asked why Blue Chip investors are in a different position from investors in other finance companies. Essentially those who invested their money in other failed finance companies are in the same position whereas Blue Chip involves over 50 companies and a complex range of arrangements and therefore investors are experiencing quite different problems. Some own property for which the promised rent has not been received others paid deposits for apartments that have never been built and some invested on the basis that Blue Chip would buy back the apartment immediately prior to settlement. It is an enormously complex situation and I congratulate the Institute of Chartered Accountants on stepping up to the plate on this matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware of a member of Parliament who extensively promoted Blue Chip’s business switched from a proven financier that has paid back 97c in the dollar on its liquidation—Western Bay Finance; and of course Mr Ryall helped out with that as well—then that same member of Parliament promoted the company— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Get out of the gutter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When tens of thousands of people lose all their money I will not get out of the member’s gutter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please come to the point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —in Tauranga where people lost all their savings and now wipes his hands of that responsibility; is the Minister aware of that and of that member of Parliament? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I am not aware of that particular situation. But if the situation that the member advises the House of does exist then I would suggest that contact be made with the liquidator Jeff Meltzer who has been very helpful in these matters. I would also suggest if those allegations are able to be substantiated that the matter be referred to the Serious Fraud Office.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15787] 
2.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How much funding did Budget 2007 allocate to education and how does this compare to funding allocated in Budget 1999? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Overall education funding increased from $5.7 billion in 1999-2000 to an estimated $10.5 billion in 2007-08—an increase of 80 percent. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister received any reports on options for changing the funding mechanisms of New Zealand’s public education system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have seen two completely contradictory reports. On Sunday National leader John Key said that the party had looked pretty carefully at bulk funding and would likely reject it. The next day Mrs Tolley said on radio that the party had had discussions about “a whole range of things” but that “bulk funding hasn’t really been one of those”. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What further reports has the Minister seen on support for changing the funding mechanism by reintroducing bulk funding? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports of continued strong support for bulk funding from National’s deputy education spokesperson Mr Allan Peachey who has completely failed to endorse his leader’s statement that National abandon its bulk-funding policy.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:646;Page:15784] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
:  
A very large amount.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:646;Page:15784] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could indicate whether by the time the House returns after the 3-week adjournment there will be anything about his coming Budget that is unknown to the public.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:646;Page:15784] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 3-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 13 May priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill the last 2 hours of the debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises and the first reading of the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Principles for Intervention 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Principles for Intervention 
[Volume:646;Page:15783] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members on Tuesday Gerry Brownlee raised with me the question of ministerial responsibility following a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice that asked her to confirm whether Ministers had attended a Labour Party workshop and about the actions of the Labour Party. The supplementary question was ruled out of order. The Minister of Justice has no responsibility for the actions of other Ministers outside her own portfolio responsibilities. She cannot be asked to confirm something for which she is not responsible. The Minister of Justice is not responsible for the actions of the Labour Party. Ministers are answerable only for the matters that fall within their portfolio responsibility. There is no responsibility for party matters and that goes for all parties. That is clear in several Speakers’ rulings.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:646;Page:15784] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 3-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 13 May priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill the last 2 hours of the debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises and the first reading of the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could indicate whether by the time the House returns after the 3-week adjournment there will be anything about his coming Budget that is unknown to the public. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
:  
A very large amount.
Fairbrother Russell: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15700] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 All right. I seek leave to have another call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There seems to be objection. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 201 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 6 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 6 as amended agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Jones Dail: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15700] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Fairbrother has had four calls. Is that not the maximum at this stage? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is right.
Fairbrother Russell: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15700] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No no. You may seek leave if you wish to have another call.
Jones Dail: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15699] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I would just like to make the point that in fact the Minister in the chair Rick Barker is going slightly down memory lane. When I was a clerk in the Magistrate’s Court in Auckland—my first-ever job—we were very proud of the Department of Justice and the standard of the Civil Service that was available to New Zealand through the Department of Justice. In fact the Department of Justice used to be considered as second only to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the quality of its staff and the service it gave to the community. If we can move back to a justice department where long-serving members are rewarded and appreciated I for one would be greatly pleased to see that happen because one of the problems of our court system today is that one can go into a court and find that people do not know what they are doing because they have been there barely 5 minutes and they have no history to rely on. 
The second point I make is to support Judge Boshier. It is not just a question of wearing a gown. Judge Boshier has also introduced a system whereby instead of sitting down all the time in what is called an informal manner but which sometimes can become too relaxed a manner counsel often—and I think more often than not—stand now in a Family Court. I can see Judge Boshier’s point entirely. I was in the Family Court towards the end of last year. Regrettably the Family Court must have the highest level of perjury in New Zealand. We want to try to bring some sense to the people who appear as parties in the Family Court and to make them realise that what they are saying is actually serious. If the suggestions made by Judge Boshier go some way towards drawing to the attention of litigants that they must not in their various domestic violence custody and day-to-day cases just slander each other wildly with no basis of fact and that the Family Court is a serious place to be then Judge Boshier will have performed a great service for the country.
Fairbrother Russell: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15700] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chair.
Tremain Chris: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15700] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Shanks Katrina: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
Shanks Katrina: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15688] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand tonight and address Part 6 of the Family Courts Matters Bill. Part 6 amends the Family Courts Act 1980. While this bill was going through the Social Services Committee which I was lucky enough to be on I do not think we actually realised that it was such a technical bill. We had some fantastic help from our officials who are here today. I acknowledge them and thank them for all the work they have put in. The bill went backwards and forwards between the committee and the officials many many times. We had many redrafts because of the way this bill was put together. It consists of 12 parts. Each part affects a different bit of legislation and it all refers back to one or two parts of the legislation which are basically in Part 6 and Part 7—the big parts. 
Part 6 deals with the publication of reports of court proceedings and with who could make that publication. There was great concern and debate in the select committee and amongst submitters coming before the committee about what type of person could be reported on in those proceedings. It was decided that people could report on proceedings that happened within the hearings but that people could not report them if they involved a person who was under the age of 18 or who was considered to be a vulnerable person without getting the leave of the court to report on the proceedings and publish them. 
It was really the publishing of proceedings that submitters were concerned about. They were concerned that vulnerable persons or young persons under the age of 18 would not understand the consequences of the reporting and they were concerned about what would happen later on when those people matured a little bit and understood that that information was out there for everybody to see. Submitters thought that maybe that would not be what those persons wanted after all because they did not have the maturity at the time or they were too vulnerable at the time to understand the consequences. We had a big discussion on that matter and a lot of submitters came and talked to us about it. 
I want to talk about one submission in particular which was from the family law section of the New Zealand Law Society. Its representatives put forward some strong submissions in relation to this bill which we took on board. We listened to their views about publication. We made no recommendation on the back of them but we took their views on board. The Union of Fathers had a lot to say on the area of publication as well as did the Family Court judges. The judges had quite a bit to say on publication and on how vulnerable people are when that sort of information is published because in this day and age when everything goes on the Internet quite instantly it is hard to retract something after it has gone out. 
I am taking just a short call to say that National is supporting Part 6.
Jones Dail: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15688] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I am just looking at new clause 42A— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Have you read it? 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes I have read it and I very much thank the Minister and the officials for coming to see me to discuss it. I am looking at the amendment to insert new clause 42A. I just wanted to make sure that it is in this part. No; I think it is in Part 6. I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker whether it is in Part 6. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Part 6. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes. I thank the Minister. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 199 and 200 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Hutchison Paul: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15687] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I note there are 12 parts to this bill—all inextricably linked—and I seek leave to see whether they can be taken as one part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to do that. The member is seeking leave that all parts be taken as one question—with a wide-ranging debate as well? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Absolutely. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Burton Mark: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Burton Mark: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15686] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Labour—Taupo) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on this Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) in part to add my acknowledgments of two people who have their roots in the area in which we are engaged in this legislation. Firstly I acknowledge Mr Alec Phillips a highly respected member of our community from the Taumarunui area a man from Manu Ariki whom many have visited and spent time with and a man whose company I enjoyed on a number of occasions. We shared our discussions about matters philosophical and also martial and physical. He was a boxer of many years past and we shared discussion on matters of spirituality and politics but also of the martial arts in which we shared an interest. His passing is a momentous thing. 
I also acknowledge Mahinarangi Tocker a young woman whose musical brilliance is a tragedy to lose in such youthful years. A number of members will recall that we enjoyed her voice in these precincts following an election not many years past. She graced us with her presence and her music and I think a number of members like me enjoyed her company and sharing music with her on many occasions. So I acknowledge these two people old and young—I regard Mahinarangi Tocker as young with a talent that I as a musician lament the passing of. They will both be sorely missed. E nga mate haere atu ra haere atu ra haere atu ra. 
Briefly the words have been spoken on this legislation. It amends the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act. This legislation moves us forward; I endorse the words of my good colleagues who have spoken before me and I commend it to the House. 
Bill read a second time.
Turei Metiria: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15666] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to debate the financial review of Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd which is also a review of the Education and Science Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member can do that. I was just going to put the question. The member seeks leave to do that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
Report noted.
Hodgson Pete: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15665] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I would like to respond to some of the remarks from Dr Hutchison. It is unfortunate that the Opposition spokesperson should be so mistaken in his assessment of for example Crown research institute directorships. I will tell members how many directorships are vacant at the moment—there is one. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: You must have filled them very fast. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No we did not fill them very fast. We have not filled any in the past few days. You see the member has probably gone to the Act and decided that it states there can be between five and nine directors in a Crown research institute and he has probably decided therefore that he would have nine. We do not operate like that; we use as many directors as we need—usually seven occasionally eight sometimes six. We have a vacancy in Landcare Research at the moment and we certainly have 23 vacancies coming up on 1 July 2008. As usual I would say about half of those will be rolled over; they will be given a second term. On the other hand we will probably replace somewhere like the other half—I am not sure yet but Cabinet will make its decision and we will take the advice off to the Governor-General. 
The question really is how the Opposition spokesperson on Crown research institutes can get stuff that simple that wrong. Why does that guy continue to draw his salary when he gets up in this Chamber and makes a serious— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: He’s substandard. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: He is substandard all right. Let us go back to last night’s report—the manifesto. The member has failed to acknowledge one thing about that report. That panel was set up in 2006. It finished its report in 2007 and decided—for reasons best known to itself—that it would tell the world about it in 2008. It said that it was very keen for there to be less bureaucracy in the application process failing to acknowledge that between writing the report and releasing it this Government has moved to a stable funding system for a fair chunk of science and research. It said that it needed bigger investment—unaware of the New Zealand Fast Forward programme that was announced a month before last which the leader of the National Party called a gimmick even though every other commentator in the country said it was great. You see the National Party is out of touch on science. The report that was released last night has to be described as a little jaded and a little out of time. I think frankly those adjectives apply rather well to the National Party. So I just enjoy the opportunity to take part in this call to debate science again with Dr Paul Hutchison and to say to him: “Dr Paul Hutchison you have a clear interest in science—I acknowledge it and I admire it. But I invite you to keep up with the facts keep up with the details and if you can keep up with this Government.”
Hutchison Paul: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15664] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I seek leave to debate the review of the Crown research institute Industrial Research Ltd. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.
Tremain Chris: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15664] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There seems to have been a slight mistake on my behalf. Our understanding is that the honourable member Mr Hutchison was to debate Industrial Research Ltd now. Can we seek an opportunity to debate that topic now within the debate? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Industrial Research Ltd is available for debate although not now. It is available; it is on the Order Paper. If you want to debate it you can.
Tremain Chris: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15664] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 May we seek a call for that? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already put the question on Meridian Energy Ltd so we had better put it to the vote while the Clerk checks the situation. 
Report noted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member should have indicated beforehand that he wanted to speak to Industrial Research Ltd. However he is perfectly free to seek leave of the Committee to have a 5-minute speech on it.
Robertson H V Ross: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15663] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next entity that I understand members wish to debate is the Foundation for Research Science and Technology. The question before the Committee is that the report of the Education and Science Committee on the 2006-07 financial review of the Foundation for Research Science and Technology be noted. No speakers?
Tremain Chris: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15663] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek a point of clarification. There was a request to debate this particular topic. The National Party is set down as wanting to debate Industrial Research Ltd. I want to be clear that no other party whose members are within the Chamber requested the topic that is before you right now. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A party may well have done but the reality is that if no one takes the call we move on to the next vote. 
Report noted.
Hobbs Marian: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15661] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The House is in Committee for the debate on the performance in 2006-07 and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises. The debate on the performance of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises is a series of debates on individual financial reviews of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported by select committees. The debates on the individual financial reviews should be relevant to their performance in the 2006-07 financial year and their current operations. A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. A total of 1 hour has been allocated for this debate. At the conclusion of this hour the Chairperson will report progress. This is because a total of 3 hours is allowed for the debate. The remainder of the debate will take place at a later time. At the conclusion of that debate the Chairperson will report to the House. Only the financial reviews that have been reported are available for debate. A list of these is appended to the Order Paper. 
I understand that members have indicated the Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises they wish to debate. The first entity that I understand members wish to debate is the Electoral Commission.
Cosgrove Clayton: Walking Access Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Walking Access Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15660] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Rural Affairs 
: I move  
That the Walking Access Bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 July 2008. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Walking Access Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Walking Access Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15660] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Walking Access Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time.
Guy Nathan: Offices of Parliament — Address to Governor-General 
Guy Nathan: Offices of Parliament — Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:646;Page:15637] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 National supports the appropriations for Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and for the Auditor-General. It is quite interesting when we look through this and see just how extensive these roles actually are and see in particular the good work that the Ombudsmen’s office is doing on the prisons which is a big capital investment that the Ombudsmen’s office is working on currently employing about 50 staff. We all know that New Zealanders now have the right to object to certain things that go on in the community and the Ombudsmen’s office is the place where those people choose to take their complaints. Over time we have seen a big increase in complaints going through the Ombudsmen’s office and it is of particular note that we mention what a good job those three are doing. There is I think currently a recruitment process going on in that office. 
I also want to comment on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and what that office is up to in this allocation as well and also on the Auditor-General. The important thing to realise is that the Offices of Parliament are made up of a collection from right across the Parliament and that these roles are not beholden to a political party but to Parliament as a whole. National is supporting these appropriations.
Cullen Michael: Offices of Parliament — Address to Governor-General 
Cullen Michael: Offices of Parliament — Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:646;Page:15636] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General commending to His Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2007/08 financial year in respect of Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the appropriations and information for the 2008/09 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and Offices of Parliament 
. 
Speaking very briefly I note that this motion is moved every year by the Leader of the House because these people are of course Officers of Parliament. They are not members of executive departments and therefore it is inappropriate for the Minister of Finance to deal directly with these offices in terms of their budgetary requests. The parliamentary select committee that deals with the Offices of Parliament goes through the budget request from those offices and makes recommendations to the House and then those recommendations are fed into the Budget process. I thank the members of the Officers of Parliament Committee for the fact that they have always acted responsibly in that regard. Of course it would be somewhat awkward if somebody suddenly decided to spend a vastly increased amount of money on the Offices of Parliament. I thank the members of the committee for their work on this matter. Once this motion is passed the remainder of the process will get under way and the appropriations will appear in the Budget.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Auckland International Airport—Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Bid 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Auckland International Airport—Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Bid 
[Volume:646;Page:15636] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Noting your ruling and the subsequent seeking of leave by the Rt Hon Winston Peters can we assume that the  
Cabinet Manual 
 which is to be publicly released this afternoon—and there is some fanfare around that I understand—will make provision for Ministers of a Government to seek leave for urgent debates in the House about their own Government’s policy and allow them to step outside their collective responsibility to seek leave for the House to debate their Government’s own policy? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the member’s point. The member has been here long enough to know that the Speaker makes rulings based on the Standing Orders not on the  
Cabinet Manual 
.