edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Chadwick Steve: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8009] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a quick call. I cannot understand the intentions of Judy Turner with her idea of a referendum. That member is usually very sensible. 
But I just want to speak tonight about timing. This clause is about the commencement date of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill and I think the bill is long overdue. Simply the tolerance of society to allow the continuation of smacking is long overdue. I will read this email: “I have just heard the news that the Maori Party will not support the Borrows amendment. If your party is going to support the Bradford bill then as the most senior Maori lawyer in practice who spends a lot of time acting for kids I applaud you.”—the Maori Party—“Now is the time and opportunity to put a stake in the ground and send a message to all people that violence in any shape or form is not on. In particular our people need to sit up and take notice. The Borrows amendment was bizarre anyway. It allowed an adult to do violence to a child which it couldn’t do to another adult. I admired Sue Bradford for saying she would withdraw her bill if the amendment succeeded—and rightly so. I now equally admire the stance of the Maori Party in helping to push the bill through.” 
This is an email sent to Tariana Turia from my husband who is the most senior Maori family lawyer in New Zealand. It is quite unusual for him as a Labour Party supporter to be writing to the Maori Party to say “Well done” and to say that it has put a stake in the ground and that the time— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to the bill. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: —to act is tonight.
Wagner Nicky: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8007] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I stand to talk about clause 2 “Commencement” of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I am concerned about the commencement date because I do not think the public are ready for it. We have already heard from many people in the Committee tonight that the public are confused by the title and they feel deceived by what it is actually saying. Polls tell us that somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of New Zealanders do not support this bill so why are we as the representatives of the people debating the bill as it is and how could we possibly think that this commencement date is reasonable? 
Sue Bradford has just said that Parliament has a job to show leadership and to make decisions for the poor uninformed public whom she considers cannot make good decisions for themselves. I would argue that we have a job to represent constituents and to respect their vision of how they want to live their own lives. I believe that this bill is technically a poor piece of legislation and it is so badly written that I predict it will cause a lawyers’ fee feeding frenzy. We should consider simplifying and clarifying this bill before the commencement date. 
This bill cannot fulfil the expectations of its promoters. We have already heard that people want to use it to send a message about child abuse which is about the criminalisation of parents who use force even very small amounts of force to carry children to time out in order to correct them. I know that Sue Bradford does not want to criminalise parents—she has told us that in the Justice and Electoral Committee—particularly if they are only putting their kids in time out. So perhaps we should consider a review before the commencement date of what this bill can achieve. 
I do not believe that this bill addresses the issues that are identified as the core factors of child abuse. We should perhaps consider detailing an inventory of those drivers of child abuse that have been identified and perhaps the methods to combat them before this commencement date. 
This bill restricts the options of parents and has the ability to criminalise good parents—the very people whom we need to rely on to provide the protection and nurturing environment for our kids. We need to find a way before the commencement date to support parents and raise the skill levels of parents. This bill has a very unhealthy Goody Two-Shoes Government-knows-best attitude when every scrap of evidence on successful child-rearing indicates that happy homes and strong families are the best places for kids. 
We should find before the commencement date a way to allow for a diversity of parenting methods and for new initiatives that will keep families happy and healthy. But probably the very best thing that we could do with this bill is to postpone the commencement date until we have got it right—or perhaps even indefinitely.
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8005] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 2 (Donnelly Woolerton); Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 5 (Brown Mark Paraone Peters Stewart); United Future 2 (Copeland Turner); ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Can I just remind members who have cast a split vote that they need to give the split vote to the Table.
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8005] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We have two amendments. The first amendment is in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson. I rule it out of order as it is not a serious title amendment. The second amendment is in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to replace the title with Crimes (Making Good Parents Into Criminals) Amendment Bill. That is also ruled out of order. The question now is that clause 1 stand part.
Barnett Tim: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8004] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Chauvel Charles: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8002] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise to take a call on the bill and to speak in particular on the appropriateness of the name. Other speakers have said that this legislation could have all sorts of other names. Well I am supportive of the current name but I agree that there are other ways the bill could be described. 
It could equally be described as the “Crimes (Giving Children the Same Protection from Assaults as Adults) Bill”. It could equally be fairly described as the “Providing Reassurance to Parents by Providing Protection in Situations of Restraint for Purposes of Keeping a Child or Other Person Safe Bill”. It could be equally ably described as the “All Use of Force to Punish a Child will be Illegal and This is Clear to Parents Bill”. 
It could be described as the “Making a Smack Equally Unlawful Along With Other Harsh Punishments of a Child Bill”. It could be called the “Sending a Very Clear Public Message that Violence Against Children is Unacceptable Bill”. It could be called the “Making Legislation Consistent With the SKIP Initiative and Other Positive Parenting Initiatives Bill”. It could be called the “Making it Clear that Private Schools Cannot Get Parents to Physically Punish their Children for the School as Currently Happens Bill”. It could be called the “Making it Clear that it is Illegal to Hit Children Anywhere on their Bodies Bill”. 
It could be called the “Making New Zealand’s Legislation Consistent with International Human Rights Obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Bill”; that would be an equally apt name for this legislation. It could be called the “Making New Zealand’s Crime Laws Consistent with the Children Young Persons and their Families Act the Domestic Violence Act and the Care of Children Act Bill”. It could be called any of those names because they describe what the bill does. I support the bill.
Pettis Jill: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7996] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I want to make just a short contribution at this stage. I rise initially to say that I support the title of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. I think it explains very clearly what the member who is promoting this bill Sue Bradford is trying to achieve—not on behalf of herself but on behalf of children in New Zealand society. 
The bill could have been named many things. One of the titles could have been the “Reduction in Domestic Violence in New Zealand Bill” because that describes what is quite likely to occur when this new legislation—I hope sincerely—is passed into law. I most certainly will be voting in favour of it. Organisations that work in the area of reducing domestic violence have stated that the passing of this amendment bill will work towards reducing domestic violence in New Zealand. I am sure that the member who has just resumed his seat Taito Phillip Field will support me in saying that we all want to see a reduction of domestic violence and violence of any sort in New Zealand. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to the title. All members are getting too general. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Absolutely. This bill is far-reaching in its aims. The title is very clear about what the bill wants to achieve. What perhaps has been lost sight of to a degree during the whole debate that has ensued over recent months is that violence against a child is a crime. A child who witnesses violence in the home is being exposed to a crime. This is a good title and I am pleased to speak in support of it.
Donnelly Brian: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7995] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to the title of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill I presume there is the opportunity to refer to one or two of the alternative titles put forward. I would like to talk to the previous title the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. I actually preferred that earlier title. People have suggested the bill should be called the “Anti-smacking Bill”. 
I want to make this point—it was suggested by Judith Collins who is a lawyer; she knows the law—and that is to ask where in the Crimes Act it is actually stated that parents or people acting in the place of parents have the right to smack their children. It is not actually stated. There is nothing in the law to state that parents have a right to smack their children. In fact with the way the law is set up parents do not have a right to physically remove their children to the naughty mat either—as Mr Copeland referred to. In fact those actions are under the existing law an assault. But there is a defence within the law that talks about reasonable force by way of correction. 
Reasonable force is a public standard and there is nothing within the current law that may in the future prevent someone from being prosecuted for smacking his or her child and a jury saying that that is unreasonable force. Therefore to suggest that this bill should be named the “Anti-smacking Bill” is totally and utterly illogical.
Pillay Lynne: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7994] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to stand and speak in support of the title of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. It is an appropriate name for the bill. It is a common-sense name. It is not a repeal; it is an amendment—and I acknowledge at this time the assistance of the Law Commission—that acknowledges the concerns raised by some people who came to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The committee heard almost 200 submissions. There was a concern that people would be criminalised for caring for their children—a concern that the previous speaker Judith Collins and other people were prone to promote out in the community. 
So I speak very strongly in favour of the title of the bill. I feel it is very appropriate. The “Anti-smacking Bill” would not be appropriate; it is not a title that describes what the bill is about. Yes there are concerns out there because that member Judith Collins has gone out saying that that is what the bill is about. That is not what it is about. It amends the principal Act and it amends it in a very meaningful common-sense way that gives assurance to good parents and protection to children. In that case I am very proud to stand as chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee and support the majority report and the amendment to the title of the bill.
Bradford Sue: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7992] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I should like to briefly start this debate on the title clause by explaining the reason for the change of name as recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee. The earlier title of the bill the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill indicated my original purpose in putting this bill forward—that is to completely get rid of the statutory defence of reasonable force for parents who use force against their children for the purpose of correction. However during the course of the select committee process as many members will be aware by now some of those on the committee felt that rather than simply abolishing the defence of reasonable force we should substitute a new clause amending the principal Act instead. This is the new clause 4 which we will be debating in more detail shortly. 
But just to summarise new section 59 in the new clause amends rather than abolishes the reasonable force defence. Entitled “Parental control” the change aims to clarify and reassure parents that should this bill go through they will stop having a reasonable force defence if they for example stop a child from coming to harm or from engaging in criminal conduct prevent a child from engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour or if they are carrying out a normal task of parenting like pulling a sweater over the head of a struggling toddler. 
The new provision also makes it very clear however that the retention of a reasonable force defence for these purposes does not mean that parents will still be able to use it as a defence if they use force for the purposes of correction— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but she needs to come back to the title. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: I am Madam Chairperson. Because we have introduced a new clause 4 it has therefore subsequently been necessary to amend the title of the bill because it is no longer a simple amending bill. Now is not the time to debate the pros and cons of the new amendment to the original draft—we can do that later on—but I thought it would be useful to state why the change has been made.
Field Taito Phillip: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7992] 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Perhaps you could clarify for me why this particular bill is different from every other bill in that regard because I do not quite understand what you are actually saying. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: As I said at the beginning these are clauses not parts—OK?
Field Taito Phillip: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7992] 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I appreciate that and I think it can be said of every clause that it must be relevant. The debate must be relevant. There is no question about that—that can be applicable to clause 1 to clause 2 and right through however many clauses we have. That is the point I am making. Why should we point out clauses 1 and 2 when in fact the question of relevancy in debate applies to all clauses? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: As I started to say this bill is structured differently from most bills. Usually debate on the title clause is now used at the end of a bill as a wrap-up speech and it tends to be wide ranging. I think that is what a lot of people assume and it is the only reason I reminded people at the beginning that this bill was structured differently.
Field Taito Phillip: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7992] 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I want to raise a bit of a concern given your explanation about clauses 1 and 2 that there is a limited debate in regard to them. Perhaps you could clarify the reason for that for me. To me the title is important and the commencement date is important. These are issues on which the Committee should be allowed to determine the outcome of the debate in regard to those two clauses. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I clarify for the member that it is not a limited debate but debate on clause 1 is limited to the relevance of the matter of the title and that applies to about three or four clauses in this bill. Clause 1 is just a clause and the debate is limited to the relevance of the debate on the title; members can speak about the title in debate on the first clause. Then as I said debate on clauses 3 and 4 is wide ranging.
Collins Judith: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7991] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Just before we start I want to check that we are going to debate this clause by clause. Have I got that absolutely right? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes as I said at the beginning this bill is structured in clauses which is something we are not all used to so there is a debate on clauses. But because it is on clauses people must be relevant to the clause.
Hartley Ann: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7990] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The House is in Committee on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Before we start I remind members that this bill is constructed a little bit differently from what members are used to. Members have become accustomed to some latitude in debate on the title clause. However this latitude is limited to a bill that is drafted in parts and where the title clause is considered at the end of the debate on the parts. That is the procedure we usually have. This bill is drafted in clauses however and there has been no agreement to have a wide-ranging debate on this clause or any groups of clauses. Each clause is to be treated separately. The first clause is about the title of the bill.
Bennett Paula: Tabling of Documents — Early Childhood Education 
Bennett Paula: Tabling of Documents — Early Childhood Education 
[Volume:637;Page:7990] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that will show the misleading of the House today by statements from Mr Maharey and the Minister of Maori Affairs. They have made statements about things I said in the House last night. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.
Tabling of Documents — Early Childhood Education 
Tabling of Documents — Early Childhood Education 
[Volume:637;Page:7990] 
Tabling of Documents 
Early Childhood Education 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that will show the misleading of the House today by statements from Mr Maharey and the Minister of Maori Affairs. They have made statements about things I said in the House last night. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.
Donnelly Brian: General Debate 
Donnelly Brian: General Debate 
[Volume:637;Page:7987] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We operate under legislation called the Health and Safety in Employment Act. Somebody has laid a cord across here—I do not know for what reason—and has put a carpet on top of it. The carpet here is actually presenting quite a hazard to members who could very easily trip on it and injure themselves. I ask that some remediation is made of this particular thing so that members are not put in danger. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Donnelly. I will have the Serjeant-at-Arms look at that obstacle which may be an impediment to members and may cause an accident.
Hughes Darren: General Debate 
Hughes Darren: General Debate 
[Volume:637;Page:7985] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the speech of the Hon Annette King but throughout her speech Mr Auchinvole was making interjections and he is not seated in his correct seat for interjections in the Chamber. He might like to just trot back to the back of the Chamber if he wants to keep parroting away during the general debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not need any help. I am aware of the Speaker’s ruling on the issue but I have to say that Mr Auchinvole is taking part in this debate and therefore I have allowed the issue to go on.
Cullen Michael: General Debate 
Cullen Michael: General Debate 
[Volume:637;Page:7974] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First that was not a personal explanation at all because it was not about the member’s actions. Mr English confirmed that he saw Exclusive Brethren and did not tell us what they talked about at that meeting. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: What I want is what everyone wants in this world and that is order.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7966] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 My question is to the “Minister for Deforestation” and asks: does he stand— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I have just asked members to please stick to the script and not edit or interpolate. It is the Minister of Forestry please. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Madam Speaker I note that 17 times National’s leader has been referred to as the co-leader and you have taken no action so why have you suddenly taken offence to the “Minister of Deforestation”? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I did take action. Would the member be seated. Now please just ask the question as it is on the Order Paper.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7965] 
9.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Is the Government reviewing the Electricity Act 1992 which allows for remote parts of the electricity network to be cut off from 2013? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Yes. Section 62 of the Act as passed when National was last in Government presently allows remote areas to be cut off from electricity networks from 2013. This does not seem a fair outcome so Labour is cleaning up after National by reviewing section 62 to ensure that one way or another the lights stay on. 
Dave Hereora 
: Has the Minister received any reports on misunderstandings of the section 62 review process? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes. I have received a report that Gerry Brownlee has demanded the review of section 62 be called off. He asserts that he is trying to protect rural users. Sadly Mr Brownlee has it completely wrong. As it stands remote rural areas could be powerless after 2013 and the review is needed to ensure the lights stay on. He obviously does not understand the current law. Again National has it completely wrong as it does with so much of its climate change and energy policy. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If his Government is so concerned about preserving the networks—or those who are on the end of network—beyond 2013 why does he not just announce that he will change the law rather than go through a review process that leads everyone to believe that he actually wants to cut those people off? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I again reinforce to the member that that is the effect of the current law—the law that we are reviewing. I would like to quote from the Major Electricity Users Group newsletter last week which does get it right. It notes that it is a complex issue—I admit that it is a complex issue; the member obviously does not get it but it is a complex issue—but the Major Electricity Users Group agrees that it is better to conduct a review. I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a press release from last week from the befuddled Gerry Brownlee which states: “This review is completely unacceptable— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister knows better. Just make the point of order straight without any comment about the member. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table a press release dated 6 March 2007 from Mr Brownlee which states: “This review is completely unacceptable.” 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table a report from the Major Electricity Users Group that acknowledges that the issue is complex but states that it is probably better to review it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7962] 
7.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What is the level and nature of assistance that New Zealand is contributing to security and reconstruction in Afghanistan? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Cabinet decided on Monday to renew the commitment of our provincial reconstruction team to Bamian on the basis that it has done a hugely impressive job there in contributing to both stability and reconstruction and that it is warmly welcomed by the community. The total deployment of the provincial reconstruction team will again be around 120 people in and around Bamian. That deployment will be supplemented by five staff officers working with the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul and a couple of NCOs helping to train the Afghan National Army. There will also be a new deployment of two medical specialists to help the Multinational Medical Unit in Kandahar and for a short period a redeployment of the frigate in the Arabian gulf as part of the maritime interdiction operation. 
Dianne Yates 
: Is this an adequate level of assistance given the call for additional efforts in this area? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes it is. Of the 37 nations providing military contributions to Afghanistan New Zealand ranks on a per capita basis in the top half. Of the non-NATO nations we have the second-highest per capita contribution. We will have spent something like $30 million in financial contributions this year to support that deployment in addition to development assistance. That contribution also needs to be seen alongside the very significant contributions we are making in other areas such as the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste. 
Dianne Yates 
: Has the New Zealand Defence Force’s contribution made a difference in Afghanistan? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Absolutely. The New Zealand provincial reconstruction team is regarded by the Afghan people themselves and by other contributing forces as a model for others to follow. It has worked closely with local authorities and the local community. It has built up an excellent rapport with the people there. It has helped to ensure stability. It has made a major contribution to both physical and social infrastructure. In fact it has done such an impressive job that other countries such as Singapore have made application to provide further troops to work under the New Zealand provincial reconstruction team in Bamian.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7955] 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Corrections and his department; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 As I told the member in response to exactly the same question yesterday yes because the Minister is hard-working and conscientious. Although the department clearly has room to improve I am confident that with its current leadership that will happen. 
John Key 
: If the Prime Minister has confidence in the Minister of Corrections why was he not allowed to front up to the media on the release of the three reports and why was he not allowed to front up the debate in Parliament yesterday? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I also addressed that issue in response to questions yesterday. The issue cuts across three Ministers’ responsibilities. It cuts across those of the Attorney-General who appoints the Parole Board it cuts across those of the Minister of Justice who is responsible for criminal justice policy and it cuts across the portfolio of the Minister of Corrections who is responsible for operations. That is why I as Prime Minister decided to speak last week and that is why the Deputy Prime Minister spoke yesterday. 
John Key 
: What does it say about the Minister of Corrections that yesterday in Parliament he was almost thinking of apologising to the family of Karl Kuchenbecker because the tragic death of their son was being debated in Parliament but that he frankly could not be bothered to actually apologise to them for the fact that their son died with the responsibility lying with his department? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised that when the Minister and the local member of Parliament met with the family the Minister said to them in person that he was very sorry for what had happened. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will be heard. 
John Key 
: If the Minister of Corrections is so keen to have his apology transmitted to the family why does he not say it in Parliament then rather than just in private? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Because he is not a grandstander unlike the member. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members on the Government benches do not be quiet so that the member can be heard they will be leaving the Chamber too. 
John Key 
: Has the Minister of Corrections offered his resignation to the Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No nor would I accept it. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister recall that in 1994 she stated in relation to the Michael Joseph Savage team: “He knew the answers lay in the Government taking responsibility. Nothing has changed. That is still the right answer.” or is that just another example of the “Maharey principle”: what one says in Opposition does not quite work when one is in Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If the member had bothered to complete his historical research he would have found that in the term of the first Labour Government the concept of a Minister being set out as responsible and not to blame was fully articulated.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Statements — Chamber Sound—Testing 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Statements — Chamber Sound—Testing 
[Volume:637;Page:7953] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just draw to members’ attention the microphone in the middle of the Table. Some questions have been raised over a period of time about the sound in this House—in the Chamber as well as the gallery—so there is an investigation under way and that microphone is for testing the sound.
Speaker’s Statements — Chamber Sound—Testing 
Speaker’s Statements — Chamber Sound—Testing 
[Volume:637;Page:7953] 
Wednesday 14 March 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Chamber Sound—Testing 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just draw to members’ attention the microphone in the middle of the Table. Some questions have been raised over a period of time about the sound in this House—in the Chamber as well as the gallery—so there is an investigation under way and that microphone is for testing the sound.
Borrows Chester: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8085] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is interesting to read an extract from the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 10 February where Mr Ralph Jones the Chief Executive Officer of IHC New Zealand obviously believes he is selling his soul on this issue. When he was held to account by a Mrs Armstrong of Nelson the mother of a disabled person—she was worried about the situation in respect of someone in her family—his response was: “Has the IHC become too PC in some areas? Yes by being a service provider we have bought into the government expectation standards and policies. The $140 million”—which is what IHC receives from the Government—“comes with a cost.” The cost is obviously too hard to swallow for Mr Jones. 
The problem we have here is that the Labour Government feels it needs to stick to a philosophy—a philosophy that all people must earn a minimum wage even at a time when that minimum wage may give them less or at least nothing more than what they are getting at the moment. So the disabled people who are working in the workshops in my electorate and in workshops right around the country have to be assessed as to how much they are worth in terms of a full unit; that is a pretty degrading way of going about assessing somebody’s work especially somebody who is unable probably in most cases to make an argument to the contrary or to seek some sort of appeal or review of what that is. So we have a situation where the people who are working with these disabled people who care for them and who have become their friends over long periods of time need to make what is quite a cold-hearted sort of assessment of people they care about. That assessment should actually be done by the inspectors; the trouble is that there are not enough inspectors to do the job but no one seems to care too much about that. We can look at the case of a person who commented recently in the media. He had 86 members to assess and no help from the department in doing that. He had to sit down and work with them and they had to have a family member present. Then later the assessment had to be ticked off by an inspector who would assess the job that that man had done—a job an inspector should have done. That man had spent hours and hours working on those assessments and he had done only six; he had another 80 to go. 
What has become completely apparent too is that for a lot of these workshops the cost of the attendance fee will be a lot more than what they currently pay but it will give virtually nothing more—if anything—to those who are attending. Minister Dyson’s response to this was that she could see their problem but she did not think it would continue to be a problem. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Brown Peter: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8081] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I listened intently to the member who has just resumed her seat. She seemed to be talking about clauses in Part 3. I am under the impression we are debating Part 2 at this moment. 
Sandra Goudie 
: That’s all right; you can think that. 
PETER BROWN 
: She is glad I noticed. At least someone was listening to her. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member. It certainly looks as if she could have been referring to some of the clauses in Part 3. I just remind members that we are talking on clauses 6 to 11.
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8080] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8079] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 71 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 4(b) is now out of order because it is inconsistent with the previous decision.
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8079] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 96 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 4 be agreed to.
Gosche Mark: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Gosche Mark: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8079] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Barnett Tim: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:8078] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Barnett Tim: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Barnett Tim: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:8076] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 Very briefly I want to place on record that I consider the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill to be an excellent piece of work. It has been 5 years in the making and reading through it this afternoon I can see that it is very carefully structured in terms of its presentation to members of Parliament and covers its impact and the consultation undertaken. We as a House should recognise it as a model of its type. The work of the select committee and the Minister Phil Goff leading up to this point reflects that. 
On occasion we in this Parliament can agree on matters and work together to best effect. I place on record the contribution made by Commander Chris Griggs the military justice review project officer who has been working within the New Zealand Defence Force for a considerable period to produce this work. He is highly professional. This bill was obviously a labour of love as well as a labour of excellence. I trust that over the next few months the select committee will do good work on the legislation. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.referred to Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee
Barker Rick: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:8063] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Fisheries 
: I move  
That the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee 
referred to Primary Production Committee 
 and that it be an instruction to the committee that the bill be reported to the House by 12 June 2007 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 194(a) and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:8063] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a first time.
Choudhary Ashraf: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:8062] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
Aleikum salaam. I rise to take a brief call in support of the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill. This movement of sustainability which is the catchcry of the world nowadays started 20 or 30 years ago. It all started in New Zealand with if you like the introduction of the Resource Management Act. The whole idea is to make sure that we manage and utilise the resources that we have inherited from our forefathers and make sure there is enough left for our children and grandchildren to enjoy. Sustainability is pretty much akin to all the resource management legislation that we have in place. We are now talking about the aspiration to carbon neutrality and making sure that the land the air the sea and the forests—all the resources that we have—are managed and utilised in a way that maintains them for future generations. 
Normally we have been talking about GDP which is basically talking about things in dollar terms. We talk about trying to have economic gains from various national resources and as the world moves towards some kind of genuine progress indicator we have to make sure that environmental and social issues are taken into account as we move forward. 
This bill about fisheries is in the same vein as the cautionary approach we take to the resources of land and air to protect them. This bill is all about protecting fisheries for the longer-term use by our future generations and this precautionary approach is to make sure there is enough fish for future generations to enjoy. In the longer term sustainability and utilisation as I see it and I have done a lot of research into some of these sustainability issues are really compatible. On the one hand we say that farmers have to make money to survive which I totally agree with but on the other hand we say that long-term sustainability and long-term enjoyment of these natural resources are important and we must look after them. In terms of the fish stock in the sea we have to make sure that we fish in such a way that enough is left for the long term. 
I had the opportunity last week to go on a trip with the seafood industry and it was fascinating to see some of the aquaculture areas that are being developed up in the Hauraki Gulf. It was nice to see a large area now brought under aquaculture to grow fish for export purposes. 
I support the bill which is clearly designed to remove any ambiguity in the current Act and to make sure that future decisions allow for sustainability in the longer term. Thank you very much.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8057] 
12.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is the Immigration Service taking any action to find the 98 eligible Zimbabwean nationals at large who did not apply under the Special Residence for Zimbabweans Policy before 28 February 2007; if so how many have they found to date? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Acting Minister of Immigration) 
: I am advised that the department has made a considerable effort to contact people to encourage them to apply under the special policy for residence. I have been advised that the number of eligible applicants who have not applied has now been reduced to 70 from the 98 the member was aware of. The Government’s policy on this matter is clear: anyone who fails to apply by the deadline does not have a guarantee of residence. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Associate Minister of Immigration aware of the Minister’s statement: “Any Zimbabwean national illegally in New Zealand would be subject to removal processes.”; if so why is the Immigration Service not vigorously searching out these people with a view to their leaving this country? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The department always actively seeks to locate persons unlawfully in New Zealand. Such persons have their cases dealt with on a case by case basis taking into account their personal situation. The member should note that I have been advised that not all of the 70 individuals are in New Zealand unlawfully. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the last point the Minister made what does he have to say to the hundreds of people waiting for residency with no guarantees of success after having applied legally who see a group of people who have been rejected for guaranteed entry yet are still able to apply through other channels—does he think that is fair and is it a reflection of Labour’s attitude to immigration? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I can say to that member—and I am sure he is aware of it—that all cases in respect of individual applications are dealt with on their merits and fairly on a case by case basis and that is as it should be.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:8054] 
10.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What reports has he received on the success of the Modern Apprenticeships scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Last week I had the pleasure of personally congratulating Mr Phillip Newport the 3000th Modern Apprentice to complete training under this scheme. The 3000 Modern Apprentices who have now completed their training prove that the Labour-led Government’s revitalisation of trades training is continuing to bear fruit. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can the Minister tell the House how many Modern Apprentices are currently in training and contributing to the New Zealand economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The latest statistics show that at 31 December 2006 there were 9466 Modern Apprentices in training—up 13 percent from December 2005. Total industry training numbers increased 5 percent over the same period to just under 124000. This is in marked contrast to the destruction of apprenticeship in the 1990s which was particularly marked by the repeal of the Apprenticeship Act by the Rt Hon Bill Birch.