edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tolley Anne: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tolley Anne: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:618] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I will make a couple of points in relation to some of the comments that have been made so far. I firstly refer to the rather eloquent speech made last night by the previous Minister of Education the Hon Chris Carter. He talked about what his Labour Government had done and talked about the many measures it took to address truancy. He asked why there was not more in this Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill to address truancy. Well in a way he is right because all the measures he was talking about are other ways of addressing truancy and we have indicated in our policy that we support many of those initiatives. We intend to bring in more initiatives and we have made some more funding available. However none of those initiatives require legislation which is why they are not in this bill before the Committee. 
But it is interesting that for all the previous Minister said about what his Government had done for truancy he was unable at any time to tell us exactly how many truancy officers are out there on the ground in New Zealand. He clearly did not want to know. Under his watch truancy grew in this country by 41 percent—a 41 percent increase occurred under all those initiatives he was talking about last night and that was with all those dollars that had been put in. At any one time under that previous Minister’s watch 30000 children could be missing from school. That is the record of the previous Minister. 
The question has been asked as to whether prosecutions work and whether there has been any research. Well there has been some research here in New Zealand. Back in 2004 under the previous Labour Government the ministry ran a streamlined truancy prosecution trial. The results of that trial showed that the threat of prosecution where it was used appropriately had amazing effects. In fact out of 30 families who were threatened with prosecution for persistent and wilful recidivist truancy only one family was prosecuted—only one out of 30. The threat of prosecution has an effect on those parents who are wilfully supporting recidivist truancy and they are the people whom we are targeting with this measure. 
The last point I will make is this. If raising the fines and making the penalties for wilful truancy more serious in this country is such a bad thing then why have two former Labour education Ministers talked about raising the fines over the last 4 years? All Labour did was to talk about it; it never did it. Well this Government is doing it.
English Bill: Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
English Bill: Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2151] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Balance of Payments—Deficit 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Balance of Payments—Deficit 
[Volume:653;Page:2151] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Sir Roger Douglas seeking to debate under Standing 380 the state of New Zealand’s balance of payments deficit. The state of the balance of payments deficit is an ongoing situation. A proposal to discuss an ongoing problem does not constitute a particular case of recent occurrence. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence there must be either a new situation or a new development in an existing situation of sufficient importance in itself to warrant the business of the House being set aside. The urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters that have occurred. It is not a means of debating matters that may or may not occur in the future. There will be other parliamentary opportunities to consider the state of the balance of payments deficit. The application is therefore declined.
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2138] 
5.  
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he agree that the law on self-defence needs thorough review following the throwing out of the case against Virender Singh and ongoing violence in our community particularly against small-shop owners? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Not quite yet. I recognise that there is considerable public anxiety about whether Mr Singh should have been charged in the first place. Although I do not want to comment on the specifics of the case I have asked officials for advice on how section 48 of the Crimes Act is applied in terms of both how police exercise their discretion to charge and how broadly the courts have dealt with such issues. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister agree that as a matter of principle a person’s home is his or her castle and that someone invading it does so at his or her peril; if not why not? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Section 48 of the Crimes Act as the member will know states: “Every one is justified in using in the defence of himself or another such force as in the circumstances as he believes them to be it is reasonable to use”. Also section 55 of the Crimes Act permits “such force as is necessary to prevent the forcible breaking and entering” of a person’s home. It is those matters and the application of them that I have asked my officials to look at. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: What sentence would be imposed on a hypothetical shop keeper who was successfully prosecuted for defending himself if he had twice previously been robbed and had defended himself and if the Government’s “three strikes and you’re out” bill promoted by the member who asked the primary question was operating; and is it possible that a hypothetical person who overreacted to being repeatedly robbed could get a harsher sentence under that proposed law than the robber himself? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The member will have to wait to see whether that bill becomes law.
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2137] 
4.  
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is access to primary health services a priority for him as Minister; if so why was it not listed as such in his letter of expectations? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes access to primary health care services is important. It is clear from the general election that the public expects better services from our public hospitals. We have inherited a lot of pressing problems in that area and that is why the Government has elevated immediate emphasis on improving hospital services reducing waiting lists and improving workforce retention. Having said that I made it clear in my letter of expectations that commitment to the Primary Health Care Strategy is bipartisan and remains important and if the member had read past the third paragraph of my letter she would have seen that. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What part of “Better sooner more convenient care” did a young Nelson woman with autism receive when she was locked in a police cell last week and is that what we can expect to see more of under a Minister of Health whose priority is hospital-based services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That young woman did not receive acceptable service from the New Zealand health service. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What were the priorities set out in the Minister’s letter of expectations? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: For many New Zealanders confidence in the New Zealand public health system over recent years has been damaged because of excessive waiting-times and delays. The new Government has elevated dealing with this crisis. The new Government expects district health boards to improve elective surgery volumes to improve emergency department waiting-times and to improve cancer treatment waiting-times. We also expect them to help us deal with the workforce crisis by improving staff retention and fostering clinical leadership. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Was a spell in a police cell what he had in mind when he said “We want to streamline service delivery for people with disabilities.”; if not what is he going to do for that young woman? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Both the Prime Minister and I have said that that level of service was unacceptable. The Ministry of Health is working with that district health board to ensure that the situation does not happen again. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Will this Minister be answering any primary health questions this term including the one I asked him yesterday about cash-strapped patients putting off having cancer check-ups by their general practitioner or is he still happy to let the market decide general practice fees? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It does concern me that people who may have skin cancer would not go to their general practitioner clinic to have it checked. I expect the district health boards to work with their primary health organisations to address this issue. I can advise the member that general practitioner subsidies will increase this year by more than they did last year under her Government.
Dean Jacqui: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2187] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Unlike the previous speaker and new member Grant Robertson I intend to treat the second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill with the seriousness it deserves. 
Firstly I note that that the previous speaker was extolling the virtues of the previous Minister of State Services for bringing in this bill. It is interesting that the Labour Government had 9 years to bring in these provisions. It took it 8 of those years to bring this bill before the House and then it went to a select committee. How long has it taken the National Government to bring this excellent bill to the House? It has taken 6 months. Now that is what I call commitment that is what I call progress and that is what I call looking after people. 
This bill gives effect to the recommendations of a 2003 review. So in other words the Labour Government had a review in 2003 and did not introduce this bill until 2007. 
 What kind of efficiency is that? As far as I am concerned it is not very fantastic. The Labour Government showed a distinct lack of commitment to this issue but luckily the National Government has brought this bill to the House within 6 months of becoming the Government. That by the way was after an extremely busy first 100 days of the National Government; it brought through a number of very important and critical bills that will be to the benefit of the people of New Zealand. The 2003 review of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 found many delays and inconsistencies around the legislative procedure of the Act. It also found that there was a lot of confusion about some definitions and a general lack of confidence in the protection of a whistleblower’s identity. I believe that when a whistleblower feels so strongly that he or she needs to make a complaint then that person needs the protection of the law. 
The Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill went to the Government Administration Committee that at that time was chaired by my excellent colleague Shane Ardern. Four written submissions were received on the bill from groups and individuals and one submission was heard. I hope that in the course of the second reading we will hear from one of the members of the select committee who considered the bill at that time. I am sure that one of those members will be able to provide us with some insight into the bill. Although the 2003 review found that there are no fundamental problems with the substance of the Act it found that roles and processes could be easier to follow and that guidance should be available to people who are proposing to make disclosures. 
The bill improves aspects of the Protected Disclosures Act. It enhances— 
Grant Robertson 
: Nearly there! 
JACQUI DEAN 
: In Parliament it is all about the timing and I feel so passionately about this bill that I want to use all of the time I have. 
Debate interrupted.
Kedgley Sue: Points of Order — Sittings of the House—Leave to Rise Early 
Kedgley Sue: Points of Order — Sittings of the House—Leave to Rise Early 
[Volume:653;Page:2182] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the House to be adjourned. At this point in time there seems to be some confusion and I think that it would be good— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: We do not need an explanation. The member is seeking leave. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is.
Chadwick Steve: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2182] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the time of day I wonder whether it is best for us to just call the business to a close and give the Government an opportunity— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. If the member wishes to seek leave then that is a point of order. 
Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee
Chadwick Steve: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2182] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is of deep concern to the House that we are here moving along and we are ready to debate the next bill but the Government is obviously in disarray and not prepared for what has been on the Order Paper for the whole week. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think that there has been a little slip-up here.
Vote: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2182] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I need the Minister to direct that the bill goes to a select committee.
Joyce Steven: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Referral of S.O.P. 10 to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
Joyce Steven: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Referral of S.O.P. 10 to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2173] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in its consideration of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 despite Standing Order 283(1) 
. The Supplementary Order Paper preserves those provisions in the Land Transport Act 1998 the Transport Act 1962 and associated regulations and the Land Transport Amendment Act (No 2) 2006 that are due to expire on 1 July 2009. Cabinet approval has already been obtained to transfer into or preserve in the Land Transport Act most of the provisions affected by an expiry date. The transfer will not be able to be effected before 1 July and therefore an amendment to the expiry dates needs to be enacted before that date. 
The amendments are minor but the consequences of not making them are significant. In summary the main changes are: preserving the Transport Act—this Act contains in particular provisions relating to local authority traffic enforcement powers; preserving some transitional provisions; preserving regulations and notices having effect under the Land Transport Act but made under other legislation; preserving the powers of local authorities in respect of the enforcement of special vehicle lane offences; and continuing the obligation of a court to have regard to the New Zealand Truck Loading Code for offences relating to insecure loads until the provision can be widened to include other relevant industry codes. I look forward to support for this motion from all other parties in the House.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2147] 
1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did he request that John Judge appear at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the 2007/08 ACC financial review; if so when? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 If the member is referring to the select committee meeting of 12 March then the answer is no. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was he under the impression that Mr Judge had been properly appointed at the time he was asked to go to the committee? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I was aware that there was a reconfiguration of the board of the Accident Compensation Corporation and that member will be pleased to note that Mr Judge will be appearing before the committee next week. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question. It went to whether Mr Judge had been properly appointed not whether there had been a reconfiguration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was troubled by the member’s question because it is not a matter of the process of the select committee; the chair of the select committee has no responsibility for whether a chair is properly appointed and that is why I had difficulty with the member’s question. The chair of the committee responded to the question. I believe that that was reasonable. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point which I think you probably understand and I think the member understands is that subsequently it became clear that the person had not been properly appointed. The point that we are trying to get to is when that member became aware of the fact that the chair was in fact Ross Wilson and not John Judge at the time the invitation— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That should not have been part of the point of order. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That was my point—it is not a point of order. It is irrelevant because in Parliament the chair of a select committee is responsible for the procedure for matters before a select committee not for what he or she knew about the Government’s plans. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a very good point. I will not hear— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Supplementary— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member has used his supplementary questions on question No. 1. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would remind you of the fact that Speakers’ rulings do indicate a flexibility on this and of course it is at your discretion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will just advise the honourable member that the reason why I did not allow a further supplementary question was that the first one was very marginal in terms of being allowed because as the Hon Gerry Brownlee pointed out it is not a matter of responsibility for the chair of the committee.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2146] 
11.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: What reports has he received regarding the enhancement of the fisheries sector to boost its economic potential? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I have recently received an independent review by PricewaterhouseCoopers entitled  
Fisheries 2030—Vision result areas and action plan 
. The next steps in this process will see the Ministry of Fisheries working with stakeholders to consider the best suggestions from the report and then we will action those ideas. 
Colin King 
: Are any general outcomes expected from this consultation? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Of course specifics have to flow from the consultation but I hope that we will see a more coordinated and fruitful approach by all stakeholders—customary recreational commercial aquacultural and environmental non-governmental organisations. This is about maximising the economic potential. For example the National Government is committed to ensuring that our aquaculture industry gets going instead of languishing under the current law. We expect this approach to support that.
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2144] 
9.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Is he satisfied with the way aquaculture is managed under the Resource Management Act; if not what changes is the Government proposing? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 No; this has been an area of huge lost opportunities since the ill-conceived moratorium in 2000 and the subsequent botched legislation that has frozen the growth of the aquaculture industry. The Government is proposing significant changes to the Resource Management Act so we can put this industry back on a growth path. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Is the Minister aware of the opportunities in Northland for finfish and oyster farming; if so what is the Government doing to assist? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes; I believe there are real opportunities in Northland and these have been strongly advocated by Maori Aquaculture New Zealand and the Minister of Fisheries Phil Heatley. Today I jointly announced with the Minister of Fisheries a Government-funded programme to explore the feasibility of 19 possible aquaculture management areas in Northland. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What further reforms is the Government advancing to assist the development of aquaculture? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government has commissioned a major piece of work with Aquaculture New Zealand on further Resource Management Act reforms. These will be included as one of the important and first work streams as part of phase two of the Government’s Resource Management Act reform programme.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2143] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I think this raises the issue again of the speed of intervention because in fact my recollection is that the Minister rose to explain that she heard something different from what Mr Cosgrove thought he said in which case the whole issue actually could have been dealt with quite easily at that point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fact honourable members the easiest way the issue could have been dealt with was by the member asking a further supplementary to clarify the answer the Minister had given. That is the normal way to handle this kind of issue in the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2143] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 You have ruled on this matter. For goodness’ sake this was an interjection exchange across the House. Clearly Mr Cosgrove believes he heard something that was interjected. The Minister replied to one part of it. It is utterly ridiculous to waste the House’s time on this sort of stuff.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2143] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a matter that I raised before and I now have the required Speaker’s ruling for you. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 129/3 requiring Ministers to correct answers at the earliest opportunity. Thank you.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2133] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My best information is that it will be available very very soon.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2133] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 Could I follow up on a previous inquiry. When is it the intention of the Government to table the list of delegated responsibilities of Associate Ministers? I have a whole host of colleagues who are waiting eagerly to find out which Ministers they should be asking certain questions of.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2133] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 31 March it is the Government’s intention to progress the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill and first readings of bills on the Order Paper. It is not our intention that the House should be in urgency during that week.
Points of Order — Sittings of the House—Leave to Rise Early 
Points of Order — Sittings of the House—Leave to Rise Early 
[Volume:653;Page:2182] 
Points of Order 
Sittings of the House—Leave to Rise Early 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the House to be adjourned. At this point in time there seems to be some confusion and I think that it would be good— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: We do not need an explanation. The member is seeking leave. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is.
Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2151] 
Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Balance of Payments—Deficit 
Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Balance of Payments—Deficit 
[Volume:653;Page:2151] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
New Zealand Balance of Payments—Deficit 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Sir Roger Douglas seeking to debate under Standing 380 the state of New Zealand’s balance of payments deficit. The state of the balance of payments deficit is an ongoing situation. A proposal to discuss an ongoing problem does not constitute a particular case of recent occurrence. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence there must be either a new situation or a new development in an existing situation of sufficient importance in itself to warrant the business of the House being set aside. The urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters that have occurred. It is not a means of debating matters that may or may not occur in the future. There will be other parliamentary opportunities to consider the state of the balance of payments deficit. The application is therefore declined.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2133] 
Thursday 26 March 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 31 March it is the Government’s intention to progress the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill and first readings of bills on the Order Paper. It is not our intention that the House should be in urgency during that week. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 Could I follow up on a previous inquiry. When is it the intention of the Government to table the list of delegated responsibilities of Associate Ministers? I have a whole host of colleagues who are waiting eagerly to find out which Ministers they should be asking certain questions of. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My best information is that it will be available very very soon.
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
[Volume:651;Page:1039] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Further to discussions at the Business Committee last week I seek leave to move a notice without motion or debate relating to the membership of the Parliamentary Service Commission. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I move  
That pursuant to section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 the following members be appointed as members of the Parliamentary Service Commission: Nathan Guy Hon Darren Hughes Metiria Turei John Boscawen Te Ururoa Flavell and Hon Jim Anderton. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
[Volume:651;Page:1037] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I just clarify that this is a document that is going to be tabled by the Minister of Finance in any case. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Tremain Chris: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
Tremain Chris: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
[Volume:651;Page:1037] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is interesting to see Labour’s legacy cast in the Economic and Fiscal Forecasts December 2008. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I seek leave to table the Economic and Fiscal Forecasts December 2008 which show deficits of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down for a moment. I alert the member to the fact that when he raised the point of order he did not actually start speaking to a point of order. That led to disorder. I will allow the House a moment to settle down and invite the member to commence his point of order again. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I seek leave to table the Economic and Fiscal Forecasts December 2008 which show the legacy of the Labour Government— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the Economic and Fiscal Forecasts December 2008. Is there any objection?
Vote: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Vote: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:1017] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Event: Members Sworn 
Event: Members Sworn 
[Volume:651;Page:1015] 
Members Sworn 
Mr Speaker 
 administered the Oath of Allegiance to Timothy John Groser who then took his seat in the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Tabling of Documents — Sitting Programme—2009 
Brownlee Gerry: Tabling of Documents — Sitting Programme—2009 
[Volume:651;Page:1006] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am sorry to interrupt the flow of the debate but in order to facilitate the debate that will take place this afternoon I seek leave of the House to table the sitting programme for 2009. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Bridges Simon: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:996] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I rise to support this Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I agree with the member Dr Rajen Prasad that this will be a good present for the people of New Zealand when it is passed—and it is appropriate that we are doing this just before Christmas when domestic violence is a problem. I agree with him also that domestic violence is a curse and a scourge on the families of this country. 
My reason for supporting this bill like members of all parties in this House is that domestic violence is a very serious problem—indeed it is an ongoing problem—in this country and our nation. I do not think it is going too far to say that it is mind-blowing to hear that more than 80000 domestic violence incidents were recorded by the police in 2007. That number of domestic violence incidents represents the population of a city nearly the size of Tauranga—a city that I am privileged to represent—being involved in domestic violence in this country every year. The reason I support this bill is because like other members I am sure that it speaks to that problem; it speaks to and addresses in a substantive way the issue of domestic violence. 
What is most concerning about the statistic of 80000 domestic violence incidents is that according to the explanatory note the number of protection orders has been going down in the last several years. Victims have been giving up on protection orders yet at the same time domestic violence reports have gone up although I accept that this is also a matter of reportage. We of course want to see the reverse happen and I hope this bill will go some way to achieving that when it is law. We want to see the number of protection orders go up and the number of domestic violence incidents go down. 
Finally we have had police advertising campaigns and the like over quite a period now. Certainly they are praiseworthy and have been positive but going by that figure of 80000 incidents we can also say that those campaigns have substantially failed to reduce domestic violence. I cast no blame on anyone at all for this but the State’s response has been inadequate. This bill is part of an approach from the State from the Government and from all parties to strengthen the provisions and the law in relation to domestic violence and get that terrible statistic—as I say it is mind-blowing—of 80000 incidents in this country down and to deal with the issues of this country. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Worth Richard: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:983] 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 What a powerful general policy statement it is in the explanatory note to this legislation that states in these short sentences: “For a significant number of victims of violence the most dangerous place they can be is in their own home. In 2007/2008 family violence accounted for approximately 39% of homicides 42% of kidnappings and abductions 44% of grievous assaults and 64% of serious assaults.” I commend the Opposition for its indication that it will unstintingly support this legislation which is part of a package of measures that the Government continues to advance to implement effective law and order policies that will safeguard community interests and in particular the interests of victims. 
To summarise this Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill in short order—what will it do? First of all it will enable the police to issue on-the-spot protection orders police orders for a period of up to 5 days. It will ensure that the safety of children in a domestic relationship with the alleged victim and the offender is more explicitly considered when setting the conditions of police bail. It will provide that when the criminal courts are sentencing a defendant convicted of a domestic violence offence those courts will have to consider whether a protection order should also be made on behalf of the victim. It will repeal the criteria for arrest without warrant for breach of a protection order and it will amend the structure and penalties for the offence of breach of a protection order. 
For those who are interested in law and order issues there always has existed and will continue to exist the opportunity of travelling with the police at night in the back of a police car to witness firsthand some of the things that occur in our community. Like other members of this House I have had that opportunity on a number of occasions. Almost without exception certainly on the occasions that I have had that opportunity we have come across worrying incidents of domestic violence that have imposed considerable difficulties in the context of the police having to deal with those issues. The police are called to about 80000 domestic violence cases a year. They currently do not have a lot of scope to deal with potentially dangerous situations beyond advising families to leave the home themselves and to seek help from family or Women’s Refuge. 
It is a great outcome at the start of the life of this Government which I believe will continue in office for a substantial period of time that we have grasped the nettle relating to this issue of domestic violence in the way the Minister earlier outlined. I hope that the bill will be speedily reported back from the select committee and can be implemented into law without delay.
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:979] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Roy Eric: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Roy Eric: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:979] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That concludes the third reading of the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill. The question is that— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for Mr Williamson to give a speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: You cannot do that. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Opposition would not object to Mr Williamson seeking leave to give a speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I do not think we will do that either.
Young Jonathan: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Young Jonathan: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:975] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I believe that the moratorium has backfired. The Labour members felt that they had produced legislation that would operate like a well-run machine like a greatly tuned car that was economic and clean burning. But all that has come from it is a big backfire of black soot and I want to tell members opposite what that is all about. 
In New Plymouth we are faced with the prospect of having an liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal because of the reduction of gas supply that the industry has perceived. The LNG that comes to New Zealand has a carbon footprint 40 percent higher than that of indigenous gas. We can thank the last Government for that. We need to understand that Genesis which proposed this comes under the auspices of the Government. I would like to know why the former Minister did not have anything to say about it. 
I am also quite confused why under the last Government a peak-load station was built that had the capacity to burn 1.1 billion litres of diesel per year. I cannot quite understand where its commitment was given that that happened. Even this year 70 million litres have been burnt; if that diesel were used to fill trucks we would have a quarter of a million trucks full of diesel driving through our country. I cannot understand why the previous Government thought that would be a good thing. 
I support the repeal of the moratorium because at least we will go back to 52 kilograms of carbon dioxide for every gigajoule of energy produced instead of 72 kilograms. In time—because National members do believe in climate change—we will hit the renewable energy goal. Thank you.
Auchinvole Chris: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:972] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) 
: 
 I am grateful to Mr Hipkins for his contribution but I would like to join with Pansy Wong and say: “Good morning ladies and gentleman. What a beautiful day it is today. Walking to work it was splendid. The sun was shining the birds were singing and then we come in here and are faced with misery from members on the other side.” This debate has been interesting but I am surprised that Opposition members seem to be hanging the entire credibility of their climate change legislation on this one particular bill. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: All three bills; a trifecta. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: None of those three bills is crucial or a huge thing. The legislation that this bill repeals has not generated in this debate any definitive points of substance for it to be retained. The reason is that the legislation seems to have been put in as a sort of afterthought to the emissions trading scheme; something to raise credibility to give an image that Labour was against thermal production of energy. That legislation was not carefully thought through. I have not heard anybody opposite say so far that the legislation was carefully prepared and thought through. There is nothing to indicate that was the case. It is almost as though the legislation was designed as a sort of badge for Charles Chauvel to wear during his intensive hard slog at the conference in Belgium. Well no doubt when this bill passes he will choke on his canapés. I say: “Charles tantpis monami nous sommesvraimentdésolées.” 
If the previous Government wanted to do something for image it should have done it well. Frankly this thermal ban has not been done well. No substantive points about it have been brought forward in the debate in spite of the best efforts of Messrs Hipkins and Nash. They were rushed on to the front line of debate and they have done very well. It has been an interesting debate but even the Greens have had difficulty. Jeanette Fitzsimons was trying to establish a reason for keeping the thermal ban while at the same time saying it is toothless it is empty and one could drive a truck through it. 
To sum up because we do not want to spend too long on this Labour had 9 years to do something formative in this particular area of legislation. The legislation that this bill repeals is all image and no substance. It would not have worked. They say it would not have worked. They acknowledge it would not have worked. They could not have made it work. It does not have a purpose to it that will achieve anything. It was do-nothing legislation. It did not do anything it does not do anything and it would not do anything if it were retained so it might as well go. 
The record is not something that Labour can be terribly proud of. Renewable generation is down from 73 percent to 66 percent. Domestic prices are up. Forestry has been decimated. This bill will take away the pretend policies of a failed Government. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.
Wong Pansy: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:969] 
Hon PANSY WONG (Associate Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Good morning to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to all my colleagues. I am proud to be part of a hard-working National-led Government and to take a call in the early morning. 
I have to compliment the new member Stuart Nash. It is refreshing to hear a new member come out and admit that Labour is all about image and has no substance. That is what he said in his speech. He said that all Labour cared about was image and that that was why the so-called thermal ban was rushed into Parliament during the last term. Even the Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said that the thermal ban was a sham that one could drive a bus through it that it was useless and that it was actually of no impact. That is exactly what Stuart Nash said but for him that was not a problem because Labour was all about image and no substance. 
Then Stuart Nash said that the Minster of Energy and Resources the Hon Gerry Brownlee should listen to the people. Indeed we have done so and the people spoke on 8 November. National is the party that listens to the people and the people threw Labour out. If the Labour Party continues to believe in image and no substance it will be on the Opposition benches for a very very long time. In contrast on this side of the House we carry out what we campaigned on. The Hon Gerry Brownlee has always made it clear that we would repeal the thermal ban. 
I have seen a new development in respect of the legislation about repealing the mandatory quota sale of biofuel that was passed last week under urgency. Today the biofuels association put out a press release saying that it understood why National passed the legislation that it welcomed it and that it looked forward to working constructively to develop the biofuel industry. 
That is a pragmatic approach to take and we are taking the same approach in respect of this thermal ban. The legislation providing for the thermal ban was rushed. It was introduced at the last minute into the select committee process during the examination of the emissions trading scheme and it was not included in the original bill. Even the Business Council for Sustainable Development was against it. But did the previous Labour Government listen to the submitters? No it rushed the legislation through the House. So it is a pleasure for me to take a call in the third reading stage of another bill of the National-led Government which is fulfilling another election promise.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:967] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 We do have new members in the House. There is also an established order of speaking under which they may think it is not yet their turn to seek the call. So if people do not rise to take a call when it is their turn could you allow just a little leeway for other people to recognise that they can get their call earlier? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I call Stuart Nash.
Tremain Chris: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:967] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 We had moved to a point where a vote was going to be taken and I ask that we move to that point.
Chadwick Steve: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:967] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you make a little bit of an allowance for a new member who wishes to take a call?
Dalziel Lianne: Points of Order — Sale of Liquor (Community Involvement) Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Dalziel Lianne: Points of Order — Sale of Liquor (Community Involvement) Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:651;Page:963] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table the Sale of Liquor (Community Involvement) Bill a member’s bill in my name and have it set down as a members’ order of the day. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Leave is denied.