edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11047] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think this issue is actually very simple. One must read Standing Order 369 and also Standing Order 376. Standing Order 369 is quite clear. It states: “Questions may be put to a Minister”. That is what we are on at the moment: questions to Ministers. But Standing Order 376 states: “A Minister or Parliamentary Under-Secretary may answer a question on behalf of another Minister”—and it was not a ruling by Mr Speaker Hunt; it is in the Standing Orders—“who is not present when a question addressed to the Minister is asked.” In other words the only people who can answer on behalf of a Minister are another Minister or a Parliamentary Under-Secretary. An Associate Minister is of course a Minister in that respect.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11047] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise quite a serious point of order that goes to the heart of the accountability of the Government to this Parliament. You will be aware that we have a very unusual and novel arrangement in this Parliament—the first time in our Parliament’s history—where we have a Government spokesperson on energy efficiency and climate change. We know from the paper record that that member has been the architect of the policy. That member has given presentations to the select committee on the estimates that are covered in that area of the vote. We know that the member has worked closely with officials. We also know that the member is the person who both announced the policy and responded to media queries about it. 
The reason I wish to raise this is that if we go to Standing Order 370(1) we see it states that we should be able to ask questions of members of the House concerning their area of responsibility. It covers Ministers chairs of select committees and also those members who are in charge of a bill. The point I wish to raise with you is that if one looks at Speaker’s ruling 140/4 one sees that Speaker Hunt determined that one could ask questions of Associate Ministers. Over time in the Parliament we have had the development of Associate Ministers and we can ask questions of them. When lodging this question I attempted to lodge it to the Government spokesperson on energy efficiency and conservation Jeanette Fitzsimons but was told that that was not possible. 
What I seek from you Madam Speaker is an appropriate course of action in response to this novel Government spokesperson. I seek a new Speaker’s ruling that when we have a Government spokesperson who clearly has responsibility for the Government in an area of policy we as members of this House should be able to ask questions of that spokesperson in exactly the same way as of chairs of select committees Ministers and Associate Ministers.
Paraone Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Paraone Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11041] 
5.  
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What were the findings of the “further work” he requested be done into the issue of foreigners purchasing New Zealand’s residential property? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Treasury contacted Quotable Value New Zealand and the Inland Revenue Department to explore with them the possibility of further interrogating their databases. These organisations confirmed that their respective databases cannot provide further information about purchases of New Zealand property by overseas buyers. 
Pita Paraone 
: Does the Minister agree that this issue will continue to cause some concern to New Zealanders who are struggling to enter the housing market especially without the availability of full and proper information and given that there is much anecdotal evidence that suggests that foreign purchasers are having some effect on property prices? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is concern though the fact that we have seen across-the-board increases in house prices in areas that are not even remotely of great interest to overseas buyers suggests that that has not been the primary driver. I have asked officials to look again to see whether there are other ways in which we can try to develop better information on this matter. It is clear that the Quotable Value New Zealand and the Inland Revenue Department data does not give an accurate picture. 
Pita Paraone 
: Has the Minister seen the point made by the Reserve Bank in its submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s inquiry into the future monetary policy framework that variations in new migrant arrivals should be used as a supplementary tool during periods in which demand pressures in the economy are becoming intense; and does he think that property information both on foreign nationals who are resident and on those who are not resident needs to be collated separately? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I hesitate to disagree with the Reserve Bank but on this occasion I do. Firstly it is extremely difficult actually to moderate the flow of migration with any great degree of success. We have seen that quite clearly over a long period of time. The matter is much more related to the economic cycle in New Zealand than to the ability to turn on and off a tap. The second of course is that when the economy is going through a strong growth phase there is very often also a shortage of labour and a shortage of skills. If migration was cut off at that point—which is effectively what the Reserve Bank is arguing—that would lead to stronger wage pressures and the Reserve Bank would then be concerned about inflation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek to table the Sunday paper of 12 August which discloses that an English domiciled resident and owner has bought 12 farms in New Zealand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions—Ministers’ Answers 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions—Ministers’ Answers 
[Volume:641;Page:11032] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his observation and may I suggest as I have on numerous occasions in the past that this matter would be more usefully taken up by the Standing Orders Committee.
Dunne Peter: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions—Ministers’ Answers 
Dunne Peter: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions—Ministers’ Answers 
[Volume:641;Page:11032] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thank you for that ruling. I think it is very helpful but could I suggest that the difficulty that has been emerging has been the conflict between the Speaker having no obligation over the quality or content of an answer and the Speaker’s ruling that states that a question has to be addressed. I think that some of the points contained in your ruling in terms of the circumstances in which the presiding officer might intervene to say that a question has not been satisfactorily answered are very helpful. It might be a useful standard moving forward if they were to become the yardstick by which to adjudge whether a question has been addressed rather than this constant situation we get now where questioners who feel they have not got the answer that they thought they were going to get protest that the question has not been addressed. I take it from what you are saying that the two conditions that you set out in the ruling will be what you will be applying from now on in determining whether the question has been answered.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions—Ministers’ Answers 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions—Ministers’ Answers 
[Volume:641;Page:11031] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: On Thursday the Hon Peter Dunne asked me to re-examine the rulings on Ministers’ answers on the ground that they may be contradictory. I have done so and I do not believe that they are contradictory. The Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings require that the answers must be relevant to the question asked but they do not—indeed it would be impossible to do so in any case—require that they are satisfactory to the House. Each member of the House decides for himself or herself. 
What the Speakers’ rulings do recognise is that there may be occasions on which the Minister’s answer though relevant may be so patently inadequate that the Speaker may demonstrate some disapproval of it. In an extreme case such as that the Speaker may invite the Minister to answer again or even permit an extra supplementary question. No such circumstance arose last week.
Turia Tariana: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
Turia Tariana: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11031] 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just point out to the House that the Maori Party signs were donated and did not have the parliamentary crest on them and that would imply that public money has been spent on the stickers. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just note for members that that is yet another invalid point of order. I sincerely hope that it will be the last of them for the day.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11031] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I also raised the matter—that is I said I have seen similar displays from the National Party as well. So as I said all parties have from time to time exhibited a need to display their signage. It is a matter—[ 
Interruption 
] No I am sorry it is. This is a matter for the Business Committee. If the Business Committee feels it is a matter that should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee then so be it. I look forward to members’ contributions at that meeting later this afternoon.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11031] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I point out that the Maori Party has been doing this for some weeks—and very attractive it looks I may say on its members’ desks. I assume under the National Party that it will be one law for all—a law that applies to the Maori Party also applies to a party that covers the general electorates at the same time and that has fewer members of Parliament. I see National Party members at the back displaying National Party signs. I think that Mr Ron Mark and Mr Pita Paraone—New Zealand First—also have been displaying such signs for a considerable period. It appears to be only when the Labour Party does something that Mr Brownlee ventures into one of his rare exercises in energy and rises to his feet to raise a point of order.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11031] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just note that the member is raising the same point of order upon which I have ruled. If he does that again it will be considered a matter of disorder.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11031] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have made a request that the matter of the extraordinary display by the Labour Party—clearly by lost individuals uncertain of who they are—here in the House this afternoon should be brought up in the Business Committee. The Business Committee is an informal arrangement as I understand it to consider the business of the House—the legislative programme and the various other procedural matters that relate to the business of the House. This would be a matter that perhaps needs to be dealt with by the Standing Orders Committee which obviously does not meet all that often. In the meantime I think it would be appropriate if you gave some ruling as to whether these displays are appropriate. They are a bit like a peacock I suppose—
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11030] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Certainly as they relate to select committee visits yes that same scrutiny has been applied for those trips that are under my jurisdiction.
Sharples Pita: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
Sharples Pita: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11030] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Tena koe. In relation to your ruling in respect of Hone Harawira has the same due diligence been applied to other members of the House on their trips when they were on formal business representing Parliament? From what I understand there have been all sorts of things including camel rides and rugby games on the various trips.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11030] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows that is not a valid point of order. As I said there is an appropriate forum for such matters to be raised and that is in the Business Committee.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11030] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I hope that the Business Committee will consider this from the point of view of the benefit that is perceived to be gained by the various members in putting up such a display. Also I wonder Madam Speaker whether it would now be appropriate for members when they rise to perhaps indicate where they got their suits their ties their shirts and even their shoes.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11030] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would appreciate it if the member would raise the matter at the Business Committee. I have noted that other parties have done a similar thing including the member’s own party and other parties who sit in other parts of the Chamber.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11030] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I call your attention—as if you needed it—to the vast array of New Zealand Labour signage in the House this afternoon. Although it may be something that is necessary for that party to have as a disciplinary tool within its own party what are the arrangements for this sort of display?
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11030] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member also knows that is not a valid point of order and that matter has been dealt with.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11030] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder given the strong ruling today which of course the House will accept why you cannot perhaps give us an indication of why New Zealand First has not been asked at this stage to pay up its contribution.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11030] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I appreciate your ruling and the need for Mr Hone Harawira to refund half his travel expenditure. Given the nature of his trip I am sure he will be prepared to do that. But it raises a wider issue because the issue was first raised by New Zealand First. In actual fact the money that Mr Harawira might owe the taxpayer pales into insignificance when we compare it with the money that New Zealand First owes the taxpayer. So I do not see why Mr Harawira should have to pay his money back when New Zealand First gets away with it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member well knows that is not a valid point of order. If members have any other matters to raise in this respect would they please do it in the appropriate way—which is to contact me.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11029] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether the Justice and Electoral Committee members who travelled to Melbourne might be prepared to have their travel programme tabled in order that people might fully appreciate what a complete junket it was in the first place. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but as he knows that is a matter for the select committee.
Harawira Hone: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
Harawira Hone: Points of Order — Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party Select Committees—Official Business Signage in the Chamber—New Zealand Labour Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11029] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to table a report of my trip to Alice Springs. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Select Committees—Official Business 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Select Committees—Official Business 
[Volume:641;Page:11029] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Last Thursday a point of order was raised before this House about Hone Harawira a non-voting member of the Justice and Electoral Committee absenting himself from meetings of the committee in Melbourne to pay a private visit to the Northern Territory. I undertook to look into the matter once I had received a report from the Clerk. 
First there is the question of party votes. The Maori Party cast party votes on 8 August on the assumption that Mr Harawira was at the select committee that day. It is now clear that he was not. Party whips have nevertheless assured the Clerk that the party had three members in the precincts during that day and it was therefore entitled to cast a proxy for Mr Harawira. The party votes cast for the Maori Party on 8 August are therefore all confirmed. 
That still leaves open issues relating to expenditure in respect of Mr Harawira’s visit to Melbourne when he fulfilled less than half of the committee’s programme and indeed the obligation of members generally when they are receiving public funding to attend to the business in respect of which that funding has been provided. Ordinarily where members travel to and whether they attend select committee meetings are entirely matters for them. But in this case the committee’s visit to Melbourne was part of the official travel programme and members attending it have received public funding to participate in its meetings. I believe that they are therefore under an obligation to participate in the committee’s programme as a condition of receiving that funding. 
As Mr Harawira participated in less than half of the committee’s programme of business I consider it to be appropriate that he refund half of the airfare that was paid out of public funds on his behalf. I will be writing to him accordingly. I will also be raising the matter of select committee travel with the Business Committee today.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Latvia—Speaker of the Parliament and Delegation  
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Latvia—Speaker of the Parliament and Delegation  
[Volume:641;Page:11029] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Mr Indulis Emsis Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat to the left of the Chair. I am sure that members would also wish to welcome members of his delegation who are present in the gallery. 
Mr Emsis accompanied by the Hon Clem Simich entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:641;Page:11091] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill to be set down for its second reading and remaining stages on Wednesday 15 August 2007 despite Standing Order 292. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill — Third Reading 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11090] 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a third time.
Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill — First Reading 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11052] 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions—Ministers’ Answers 
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions—Ministers’ Answers 
[Volume:641;Page:11031] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions—Ministers’ Answers 
Madam SPEAKER 
: On Thursday the Hon Peter Dunne asked me to re-examine the rulings on Ministers’ answers on the ground that they may be contradictory. I have done so and I do not believe that they are contradictory. The Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings require that the answers must be relevant to the question asked but they do not—indeed it would be impossible to do so in any case—require that they are satisfactory to the House. Each member of the House decides for himself or herself. 
What the Speakers’ rulings do recognise is that there may be occasions on which the Minister’s answer though relevant may be so patently inadequate that the Speaker may demonstrate some disapproval of it. In an extreme case such as that the Speaker may invite the Minister to answer again or even permit an extra supplementary question. No such circumstance arose last week. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thank you for that ruling. I think it is very helpful but could I suggest that the difficulty that has been emerging has been the conflict between the Speaker having no obligation over the quality or content of an answer and the Speaker’s ruling that states that a question has to be addressed. I think that some of the points contained in your ruling in terms of the circumstances in which the presiding officer might intervene to say that a question has not been satisfactorily answered are very helpful. It might be a useful standard moving forward if they were to become the yardstick by which to adjudge whether a question has been addressed rather than this constant situation we get now where questioners who feel they have not got the answer that they thought they were going to get protest that the question has not been addressed. I take it from what you are saying that the two conditions that you set out in the ruling will be what you will be applying from now on in determining whether the question has been answered. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his observation and may I suggest as I have on numerous occasions in the past that this matter would be more usefully taken up by the Standing Orders Committee.
Speaker’s Rulings — Select Committees—Official Business 
Speaker’s Rulings — Select Committees—Official Business 
[Volume:641;Page:11029] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Select Committees—Official Business 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Last Thursday a point of order was raised before this House about Hone Harawira a non-voting member of the Justice and Electoral Committee absenting himself from meetings of the committee in Melbourne to pay a private visit to the Northern Territory. I undertook to look into the matter once I had received a report from the Clerk. 
First there is the question of party votes. The Maori Party cast party votes on 8 August on the assumption that Mr Harawira was at the select committee that day. It is now clear that he was not. Party whips have nevertheless assured the Clerk that the party had three members in the precincts during that day and it was therefore entitled to cast a proxy for Mr Harawira. The party votes cast for the Maori Party on 8 August are therefore all confirmed. 
That still leaves open issues relating to expenditure in respect of Mr Harawira’s visit to Melbourne when he fulfilled less than half of the committee’s programme and indeed the obligation of members generally when they are receiving public funding to attend to the business in respect of which that funding has been provided. Ordinarily where members travel to and whether they attend select committee meetings are entirely matters for them. But in this case the committee’s visit to Melbourne was part of the official travel programme and members attending it have received public funding to participate in its meetings. I believe that they are therefore under an obligation to participate in the committee’s programme as a condition of receiving that funding. 
As Mr Harawira participated in less than half of the committee’s programme of business I consider it to be appropriate that he refund half of the airfare that was paid out of public funds on his behalf. I will be writing to him accordingly. I will also be raising the matter of select committee travel with the Business Committee today.
Visitors — Latvia—Speaker of the Parliament and Delegation  
Visitors — Latvia—Speaker of the Parliament and Delegation  
[Volume:641;Page:11029] 
Tuesday 14 August 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Latvia—Speaker of the Parliament and Delegation  
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Mr Indulis Emsis Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat to the left of the Chair. I am sure that members would also wish to welcome members of his delegation who are present in the gallery. 
Mr Emsis accompanied by the Hon Clem Simich entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Mark Ron: Family Courts Matters Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Family Courts Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11468] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I have to say that New Zealand First has listened intently to the last two contributions from the National Party from Mr Simon Power and Judith Collins and it has been something of a pleasure to listen to those. 
New Zealand First does not have anyone on the Social Services Committee where this bill will be going for consideration but we signal here that we support this bill through its first reading to select committee. We look forward to reading the select committee’s findings and will no doubt do our best to sit in on some of those hearings which is somewhat difficult given the size of our caucus. 
I do not think there is a member of Parliament who has been in this House for more than two terms who has not had representations before them from disaffected parties to Family Court hearings. Of course we are all very familiar with many of the pleas of certain men’s organisations and lobby groups against the unfairness of the process the disadvantage of the privacy or closed nature of the Family Court and how their proceedings are dealt with. 
We accept Mr Power’s view that one should not take lightly the proposals in this bill for it does strike at the fundamentals of the manner in which the Family Court has operated up till now. But we welcome these proposed changes because we believe much has been done that has been to the detriment of innocent parties simply through the confidential and closed manner in which the courts have operated to date. 
 We look forward to possibly getting copies of the submissions as they are presented before the committee because no doubt the considerations that have been made by the Law Commission are deep and are well-thought-through but there is no denying the high level of public concern. I guess one of the things that sits foremost in our minds right now is that for justice to be done it must always be seen to be done. Therein lies one of the fundamental problems of closed hearings—of hearings that do not have the eye of the media or public scrutiny. There are definitely some issues with respect to the protection of children and vulnerable people but in the wider picture of guaranteeing to the community at large and our nation as a whole that justice has been done we must where possible ensure that it is seen. 
We support this bill through its first reading and we look forward with interest to the report back from the select committee.
Pillay Lynne: Family Courts Matters Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Family Courts Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11466] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Family Courts Matters Bill. Indeed as the previous speaker Simon Power said this bill works towards increasing the openness of Family Court proceedings. I think that is a very very good thing. 
The bill builds on the Care of Children Act 2004 which increased openness in relation to guardianship and care proceedings. This bill will introduce similar changes to other Family Court proceedings where that is appropriate. The bill also allows accredited news media to attend hearings of certain proceedings and will allow anyone to report on the court provided that that person does not use information that would identify vulnerable people or children without the leave of the court. So although there is that openness in reporting there is also that safeguard in terms of both children and vulnerable people. I think the provisions to enable support people to attend proceedings with the judge’s permission are a good and progressive step. 
As with so much legislation we see before this House this bill is the result of work carried out by the Law Commission. The commission’s 2003 report on dispute resolution in the Family Court was the basis of a lot of the work done on this bill. 
In the bill there are a number of changes relating to administration management and procedures—in particular relating to the registrars’ power. There are also changes relating to court fees non - judge-led mediation—and I want to spend just a little time talking a bit more about that—and counselling services. A mediated process can divert less complex family disputes away from the formal proceedings and resolve them certainly more quickly and less expensively. When we are talking about the rights of a child and a family then there is an obvious benefit to all if these issues are resolved through mediation that results in an agreement. I am certainly of the belief that a mediated agreement is a much better outcome than going through the entire court process. 
The bill also enhances access to counselling services. It seeks to extend provisions to anyone who enters into or in fact proposes to enter into an agreement relating to the day-to-day care of or contact with a child. This will help people to make their own arrangements and reduce their reliance on the Family Court. I do not think any member of the House would disagree with the view that mediation and agreement on issues relating to children is a much better way of doing things than going through the entire court process. 
That is why I am very pleased to speak on the bill and I am very happy the National Party will support the bill going to a select committee. I know that the committee will probably consider a wide number and variety of submissions. It is with great pleasure that I commend the bill to the House.
Pillay Lynne: Wills Bill — Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Wills Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11456] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 Indeed it is a pleasure to speak to the third reading of the Wills Bill which has enjoyed the support of the House. I acknowledge the work that the Law Commission and Sir Geoffrey Palmer did—the sterling work they did in reviewing the wills legislation. Some of the statutes involved actually went back to 1837 so this legislation is certainly well due. I also commend our members of the Justice and Electoral Committee and indeed the staff and all the officials who helped us with the bill on ensuring that the bill was in good condition to bring back to this House. I also acknowledge the submitters who came to the committee and gave good submissions on the bill. 
In fact if I reflect on Mr Finlayson’s speech last night I think that that was an indication of why this bill is so good: because it is in plain English. When I listened to the waffle and pontificating that went on last night I thought that it was very good to see a bill that is in plain English is very easy to understand and is clear and accessible to all people. There are some really important points in this bill. It reduces the chance of a will or gift failing because there is certainly more clarity. It makes it easier for young people to make wills and I think that that is a very very good thing. It also brings us up to speed with the modern world that we live in in that it recognises our de facto and civil union relationships and it moves towards the interests of the will-maker’s intention when making a will rather than being too pedantic. In fact wills in order to be recognised will no longer need to be signed if the intention of the will-maker is very clear. So that is all very good progressive stuff. 
It is not frequently—but I suppose it is not infrequently—that we have legislation come before this House that is supported by the entire House. But it is very good and it is common sense to do so when a bill provides clarity effectively cleans up a number of statutes and makes very clear— 
Hon Members 
: Which ones? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I have been asked which statutes—the statutes that go back in fact to 1837 and cover the laws that there were. 
I do not have much more to say except to add that the committee did valuable work and I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11456] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Major Events Management Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 114 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a third time.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11429] 
4.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What reports has he received on liability for leaky homes? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I have seen a report that a prominent public figure is demanding “greater commercial accountability” to “ensure that leaky home problems are not repeated”. As this Government has said all along liable parties—those who developed built designed and inspected leaky homes—must front up and pay up to fix their shoddy workmanship so that their victims can get their homes fixed and get on with their lives. The prominent public figure calling for greater commercial accountability is Mr John Key. I welcome his endorsement of the Government’s policy of making dodgy developers designers and builders front up pay up and accept their liability for leaky homes. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What other reports has the Minister received on this issue? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I have also seen a report published today that claims that the directors of a company in the building industry are “trying to dodge leaky home liability”; that by voluntarily going into liquidation they are trying to cut and run and leave their leaky home victims with the mess and the repair bill; and that these directors are also company directors and business partners of one Mr John Key. I believe that it is proper that Mr Key explain to this House and to these leaky home victims what he is going to do to keep his word as I outlined in my first answer and ensure that his fellow directors and business partners are held to account for their actions so that they do not cut and run from their responsibilities. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the story in the  
Truth 
 newspaper is a plant by the Labour Party as part of its ongoing campaign to attack Mr Key’s character? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No I cannot confirm that but I can confirm that Mr Key has—and I quote from the article—“a commercial property business with disgraced high-profile architects” and I hope I pronounce his name correctly “Colin Leuschke and Brian Cocker who are caught up in a leaky building scandal”. The company in question of which Mr Key and the said individuals are directors is the Earl of Auckland Ltd. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: In the light of the last question can the Minister confirm that the journalist concerned is a Mr Jock Anderson a well-known right-wing journalist and that one of the part-owners of  
Truth 
 newspaper is Mr Matthew Hooton who is well known for working with and for the National Party? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I believe that that is the case. 
I seek leave to table—not page 3 I knew they would ask for that—pages 1 and 9 of the New Zealand  
Truth 
. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:641;Page:11421] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 11 September 2007 as there is a parliamentary luncheon for the President of Viet Nam. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:641;Page:11421] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There may be another flip-flop from the National Party to support that bill and if it does we will certainly pass it with the utmost speed.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:641;Page:11421] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Perhaps the Leader of the House could advise whether he intends to progress at some stage in the next session or before the end of the year the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:641;Page:11421] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 4 September the Government will be seeking to make progress on the Aviation Security Legislation Bill the Statutes Amendment Bill the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill and the first reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:641;Page:11421] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 11 September 2007 as there is a parliamentary luncheon for the President of Viet Nam. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:641;Page:11421] 
Thursday 23 August 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 4 September the Government will be seeking to make progress on the Aviation Security Legislation Bill the Statutes Amendment Bill the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill and the first reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Perhaps the Leader of the House could advise whether he intends to progress at some stage in the next session or before the end of the year the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There may be another flip-flop from the National Party to support that bill and if it does we will certainly pass it with the utmost speed.
Mapp Wayne: Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11689] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is not a challenge to your ruling Mr Deputy Speaker but I thought it would have been appropriate to acknowledge that Mr Mark in his speech had rather intemperately provoked Mr Bennett. It is only reasonable to expect a certain level of interjection in that situation. I think that Mr Mark was unduly sensitive and that it would have been appropriate for there to be some acknowledgment that Mr Mark had provoked Mr Bennett. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thought that was unnecessary.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Fiji Martial Law—Government Statement 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Fiji Martial Law—Government Statement 
[Volume:641;Page:11665] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I have not been informed on this matter. I will make inquiries to see whether that is appropriate in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am of course the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs in Mr Peters’ absence.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Fiji Martial Law—Government Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Fiji Martial Law—Government Statement 
[Volume:641;Page:11665] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a relatively serious matter. I am not sure whether people in the House are aware that in recent hours martial law has been declared in Fiji. I wonder whether we might get an indication from the Deputy Prime Minister as to whether there will be a statement from the Government on that at some time today preferably to the House.
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11665] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Maori Affairs 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that demonstrates that the viewer audience of Maori Television has increased. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.