edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Jones Shane: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Jones Shane: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14872] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to follow my fellow Northlander who realises as I do when I look at Kerikeri what can take place when planning is not well conceived and when we do not have a scheme or a strategy for our heritage that gathers momentum amongst the people. 
First I must acknowledge the unstinting efforts of Lynne Pillay supported by Mr Cunliffe Mr Chris Carter and Darien Fenton. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: She’s gone too! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I say to Dr Smith that the full value of this legislation lies in the future. In the future our mokopuna will remember the efforts that our MPs supported by the three councils have put in to produce a vision and a plan that protects the valleys the gullies the trees and the creatures throughout the Waitakere Ranges. We will not see creeping encroaching ill-conceived developments into areas that are irreplaceable. 
I wait to hear from my whanaunga—and possibly my tuakana I do not know; thousands of genealogists will debate that point—Tau Henare on why he will not support the tangata whenua of that area in ensuring that the wahi tapu of the tangata whenua are looked after and that my ancestry and heritage from the Tararas—the Dalmatians scattered through all those areas—are not forgotten turned to dust and eaten by the creatures the moths and the butterflies etc. [ 
Interruption 
] I also wait to hear from Hone Harawira; he needs to stand up and be counted. On every street corner he will find that our whanau in the west are happy that the kukupa the ruru and various other creatures in the ngahere in Waitakere will sleep soundly knowing that this bill is about to find a place as reflected in Part 3 where the state of the environment and the heritage area must be regularly monitored by not only the elected representatives but also the professional advisers. 
Dr Smith does have his point in terms of oratory in the House—unfortunately it is inversely related to accuracy. He does have a point that it is easy to exaggerate potential problems. I say to Dr Smith that there is no great problem with small legislation that has the simple but admirable purpose of enhancing the ability of the current legislation to care for a specifically valuable area. I say to Dr Smith that we do that with national areas such as our national parks. We do that with areas of the marine environment and that is why this legislation will put a duty on the council to care for the heritage and the taonga of Waitakere. Kia ora tatou. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call the next member I want to remind members that the last three speakers have very broadly attempted to discuss Part 3. At the end we have a summing up discussion on the first two clauses. If members are going to make these wide-sweeping generic statements can they please stay on board.
Kedgley Sue: Points of Order — Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Kedgley Sue: Points of Order — Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:645;Page:14815] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My understanding is that you had already accepted the leave and that therefore the bill should be introduced. It was only after the leave had been accepted that Rodney Hide raised an objection. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Frequently unfortunately because of the level of noise in the House it is difficult to hear. Because I did hear something I put the question again and it was clarified. A member objected and those are the rules so the bill will not proceed.
Kedgley Sue: Points of Order — Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Kedgley Sue: Points of Order — Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:645;Page:14815] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name that incorporates Dr Cullen’s recent Order in Council into the Overseas Investment Act and lists Auckland International Airport Ltd as a strategic New Zealand asset that cannot be sold into foreign control. I ask for this bill to be set down for a first reading on the next available day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Leave is sought to put that. There is no objection? There is objection.
Points of Order — Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Points of Order — Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:645;Page:14815] 
Wednesday 12 March 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name that incorporates Dr Cullen’s recent Order in Council into the Overseas Investment Act and lists Auckland International Airport Ltd as a strategic New Zealand asset that cannot be sold into foreign control. I ask for this bill to be set down for a first reading on the next available day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Leave is sought to put that. There is no objection? There is objection. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My understanding is that you had already accepted the leave and that therefore the bill should be introduced. It was only after the leave had been accepted that Rodney Hide raised an objection. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Frequently unfortunately because of the level of noise in the House it is difficult to hear. Because I did hear something I put the question again and it was clarified. A member objected and those are the rules so the bill will not proceed.
Cosgrove Clayton: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14884] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bennett Paula: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Bennett Paula: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14875] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I will stick with Part 3. I wish to speak about the monitoring and reporting on certain matters relating to the heritage area and I think there is a good chance that I will not take the full 5 minutes. The monitoring and reporting is about working towards achieving the objectives set out in the bill. So it is about the progress made towards achieving the objectives and it is that I would like to stress. 
The question I have for Lynne Pillay the member in the chair concerns how we will monitor and report on the natural and historic resources in respect of their intrinsic worth and their benefit for use by and enjoyment by people. How will we report and monitor when we are talking about such things as the quietness and the darkness of the ranges? Will council officials sit out in the ranges with a decibel rating machine deciding how loud it is and whether it is acceptable? If we are going to have that—because the objective is about the quietness and the darkness of the ranges—then the question is whether the council has already done that. We must have something to report against. So are we in a situation where the natural landscape; the intrinsic value worth and benefit; and the quietness and darkness of the ranges will be reported and monitored by councillors or council officials who go out and measure it? How will they do that? 
We simply cannot have a provision that says we will monitor and report certain matters relating to the objectives when the objectives are stated in such waffly language that means nothing and when the matters are something we cannot actually monitor and report against. I am just taking three examples and they are quite easy ones: the quietness of the ranges the darkness of the ranges and their intrinsic worth and value which are terms used in the objectives of the bill. How will we report and monitor progress on these objectives and how have we reported and monitored on the area to date so we can say what we are monitoring against? That is my question.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14876] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Field Taito Phillip: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14872] 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I acknowledge the last speaker because I think he is very well qualified to speak particularly with his Maori and Dalmatian ancestry. They are the people who used to be up north digging kauri gum and they have come back and bought large blocks of land in the foothills of the heritage area we are talking about. 
I will take a short call because I do not want to bore listeners with the repetition that has been going on in this Chamber in respect of this bill. Last year the opportunity arose for me to visit the foothills. We have talked about the mountainous terrain and the bush area but I will mention the foothills because that is where the real concern is particularly in relation to the quality of soil which I inspected with the council officials. It was clear that the area was not suitable for high-density housing. Those foothills require some protection because they are absolutely not suitable for tiny subdivisions that will carve up the land and create all sorts of environmental issues. I was surprised to hear Nick Smith rambling on about private rights. I would have expected him as an environmentalist and a conservationist to be giving a different message this evening about the need to protect important heritage areas. 
To the Committee I say that what we are doing tonight shows absolute common sense. It ensures the rights of landowners and it does not take away from the Resource Management Act. It ensures that those areas that need to be protected are protected and that those who apply for resource consents have their proposals properly evaluated in relation both to those important environmental issues and to sustainable development. I am talking about opportunities where I can see people making millions of dollars by carving up their land into little bits and pieces with no regard for the sustainability of that subdivision. 
I think Part 3 is important not only for the people of Waitakere but also for the people of Auckland and New Zealand. I am very pleased to support this bill and to ensure that it passes through the Chamber this evening.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14875] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Sharples Pita: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sharples Pita: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11179] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. Tena tatou katoa e hui nei ki te korero i te pire nei. I want to make the stance of the Maori Party very clear. All members somewhere in their speeches on this legislation have said they believe in the principle of equal pay for the job done yet here we are with a bill that does not supply that. Why have we not got the guts to go the whole hog? That is the point.  
The Maori Party went up and down the county in support of repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act. The principle of repealing section 59 was to give children the same status as adults—in other words to end discrimination against children. Why should there be a defence for an assault on a child that cannot be used for an assault on an adult? The same thing applies here. Why can we not go the whole hog and say that we do not agree with differential wages for 16 and 17-year-olds without having to invent something like new entrants korero? 
Although the Supplementary Order Paper is an improvement on the bill in that workers now qualify for the adult minimum wage if they work for 200 hours or 3 months whichever is the sooner it still does not satisfy the Maori Party position of opposing discrimination. Our kaupapa and our tikanga the resourcing of whanau and the promotion of rangatahi [ 
Interruption 
]—if members listen carefully—are values that are very important to Maori. We Maori are also the ones who have a lot of our population in the youth area and what sort of message are we giving young people by saying they are worth less? What sort of work ethic are we supporting? What are the inside messages that we are sending to young people by saying to them that they should start at this lower rate? 
The concept of a new entrant into the workforce does not sit with that entrant being of age 16 or 17 either. It could be that someone who is 20 41 or 51 is entering into a new work area. Many Maori are employed in areas such as shearing sheds the road and a lot of manual jobs. They do not need a new entrants supervisor or skills to swing a shovel or to use a handpiece—well they need a bit of practice for the handpiece but to throw a fleece— 
Eric Roy 
: How many a day do you do? 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: All of those bro—200 a day. I am just saying— 
Eric Roy 
: You understand. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yes that is right. So despite the heckling and the support I say that that is the reason why we are opposing the bill: it is the whole thing or nothing. It is about discrimination and this bill still discriminates. Kia ora.
Gallagher Martin: Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11200] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I will take a very brief call. I say to the members opposite that I think there has been a very positive outcome for the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill. Let me be gracious in acknowledging that. 
Even though I have been in this Parliament for a number of years I still find it very hard to deal with the lack of memory that is apparent opposite. Those members are members of a party that closed the health boards and dismissed their democratically elected members and they come here and talk about democracy and openness. I find that personally very very hard to take. The “h” word comes immediately to mind. But let me be gracious. I say to Jackie Blue that she should read the history of the 1990s. She may even have been there! I say to Dr Jonathan Coleman that he should read the history of the 1990s if he wants to learn about closed doors and the dismissal of democratic community accountability. 
But I am being gracious. I congratulate the Health Committee and the member Dr Jackie Blue on the very positive outcome for this bill and nothing more needs to be said. 
Debate interrupted.
Kedgley Sue: Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11194] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party joins all other parties in this House in congratulating Dr Jackie Blue on her bill which triggered action—and I might say very speedy action—by the Government to bring District Health Boards New Zealand under the Official Information Act and to ensure that all of its work is subject to the complaints jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. This was a very simple bill but it was important. It is important that we have the reality of those well-worn words that we have heard so much about tonight: transparency and openness. I myself know that I have at times been frustrated by the inability to find out information about District Health Boards New Zealand. We look forward to District Health Boards New Zealand operating more openly and coming within the scrutiny of the law. The Green Party will be very pleased to join with others in recommending that this bill not be passed.
Stewart Barbara: Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11193] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill for all of the reasons that have been outlined by the previous speakers. We must congratulate the member on her bill and her intentions for this bill and the success that she has had with it. 
We believe that any entity representing the district health boards—and it is District Health Boards New Zealand—should be subject to the Official Information Act and the complaints jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. It was a rather interesting situation that this organisation stood alone as an incorporated society rather than as a company or a Crown entity so it could not be scrutinised by anyone—not even a select committee. 
New Zealand First is very pleased firstly that the Government has agreed with the bill’s intention. It is a very worthy intention and it did need to be acted upon. Secondly we are very pleased that there was such a speedy response to the situation and that the Governor-General has already signed the Order in Council to amend the Act so that as from 3 September 2007 District Health Boards New Zealand is subject to the complaints jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. 
I recall that some time ago District Health Boards New Zealand came along to the Health Committee to outline what its role was in health finances and all the very many other activities that it was involved with. I know that many of us had been on to the website to find out exactly what the board’s role entailed and that role was very very considerable. But the bottom line is that any agency that is using public money should be accountable and should be open to public scrutiny. 
We do not need this legislation now that regulations have been passed to ensure that the information can be obtained officially. We in New Zealand First are very pleased not to be supporting this bill and that action has already been taken.
Williamson Maurice: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11186] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you can give me some guidance on this. My understanding of the way that the Standing Orders work is that when a member’s bill is going through this House then anybody else can put amendments to it but that person must be putting them forward as a member of the House. So it should be that Ruth Dyson is putting amendments forward as a member. You have been calling these amendments in the name of the honourable Minister Mr Chairperson and I do not believe that a Minister can in the form of a Minister be putting amendments to a member’s bill. It must be in the form of the Hon Ruth Dyson as a member of this House. I would like some clarification. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for that and he is absolutely right. The member is putting the amendments through but as I understand it not as the Minister. The Minister is not in charge of the bill.  
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 137 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to new section 4(4) in clause 4 be agreed to.
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11186] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11186] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 137 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to new section 4(3) in clause 4 be agreed to.
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11170] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11165] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Hereora Dave: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11165] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to take a short call in this Committee stage in relation to the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill and the fact that we are talking at this stage about the title of the bill. If we are to consider the title and how it should reflect the substantive matter of the bill then I think that the title is appropriate. 
I disagree with the previous speaker from the Northern Territory that it in fact does represent— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No no. The member must refer to other members correctly. 
DAVE HEREORA 
: I beg your pardon. The title does in fact reflect the substantive nature of the bill because the bill is about the minimum wage. It is about making sure some statutes are in place that address minimum wages and it also reflects those minimum wages for new entrants. 
So I think that the bill is timely and that it is appropriately named. It is aimed at the group of workers that traditionally have had a long history of problems surrounding their rates of pay. Other names in the past have been used to describe pay rates for that category of workers if we are talking about whether this title is appropriate. Other names that have been bandied around have been “youth rates” and “under a certain age rates”. But I think we have come to a stage where in considering this entire bill the title is appropriate. It addresses the matters we are about to discuss as we continue this debate in the Committee stage and I stand in support of the title of this bill.
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11165] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Simich Clem: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11159] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The bill is to be debated clause by clause. Members must stick to the subject matter of those clauses.
Carter David: Farmers' Mutual Group Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Carter David: Farmers' Mutual Group Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11158] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 National certainly supports the third reading of the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill. I also take the opportunity to thank parliamentary colleagues of all parties for their assistance in making sure that the bill was progressed through the House today. 
It has been a very very interesting debate. I was particularly interested in the speech from the Maori Party member Mr Harawira and I say that Maori in New Zealand agriculture will be an increasing force to be reckoned with. I know some of the entrants who were involved in the Maori Farmer of the Year competition. Having visited some of their farms I know that they are incredible enterprises. I am sure that when the history of the Farmers’ Mutual Group is written for the next hundred years they as a group of New Zealanders will be shown in that history to have been very powerful. 
The other thing that struck me as interesting was the speech from the Green Party member Nandor Tanczos on climate change. Again when the Farmers’ Mutual Group bothers to write the history for the next hundred years a lot of the truth of the predictions about the disastrous state of climate change and what it might do to New Zealand agriculture will be known by that stage. It will no longer be a guess. 
I wish Mr Peter Jensen well. It is no mean feat to have been the chairman of the Farmers’ Mutual Group. I was just briefly looking through the history again and I note that in 102 years Mr Jensen is only the ninth chairman of the board of the Farmers’ Mutual Group. I wish him well and I wish the Farmers’ Mutual Group well both for the AGM and for the future of the organisation. 
Bill read a third time.
Maharey Steve: Farmers' Mutual Group Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Maharey Steve: Farmers' Mutual Group Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11158] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I move  
That the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill is a private bill promoted by the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association. The bill modernises the association’s business entrenches its mutual status and gives the association a new name: the Farmers’ Mutual Group. The bill has the support of the association’s members and the relevant officials. 
I take this quick opportunity to thank the House for the debate in the second reading. It is interesting to see a bill of this nature attract the kind of interest that it has and I think that it will warm the hearts of the people from the association that they have had so many comments today on their bill and so many compliments to people such as Peter Jensen the retiring chairperson whom we all wish well. We wish the association well for the annual general meeting as well. 
On a slightly light-hearted note in response to the comments of the members opposite I compliment them on their heroic efforts against the mean bureaucracy that came along to the Primary Production Committee. They courageously stood up to the bureaucracy and made sure that it did not have its way with this bill. They certainly must feel themselves to have been through a battle so I commend them on that. Once again I take the opportunity to thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for their thoughtful consideration of the bill and I have no hesitation in commending the bill to the House.
Maharey Steve: Farmers' Mutual Group Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Maharey Steve: Farmers' Mutual Group Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11158] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill to be set down for the third reading forthwith without consideration in Committee despite Standing Order 295. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not.
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11166] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2A be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2A agreed to.
Power Simon: Farmers' Mutual Group Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Power Simon: Farmers' Mutual Group Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11151] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I want to add as the other local member of Parliament from the surrounding districts of the Farmers’ Mutual Group head office my quick comments on this matter. I was just listening to David Carter talk about the contribution of Mr Jensen and of the need to expedite this legislation as a tribute to him prior to the Farmers’ Mutual Group annual general meeting. I was just thinking to myself: “I hope it wasn’t supposed to be a surprise.” 
Hon David Carter 
: It wasn’t. 
SIMON POWER 
: Oh that is great. All right as long as we have not ruined that. I take this opportunity to say thanks to the Primary Production Committee for the work it has done on the bill. David Carter in his usual deft and polite way has made reference to a couple of obstacles that needed to be jumped. He probably put it more politely than most of us would in respect of the role of the Ministry of Economic Development. The Hon Steve Maharey as the proposer of the bill has done a great job of ensuring that all political parties once the matter was reported back to the House were supportive of the matter being expedited through all remaining stages in one sitting. We thank him for guiding the bill through that passage. 
I noticed that there were actually some minor amendments to the bill that the select committee has recommended back at the second reading and no doubt the Committee stage. I think if we pause for a moment and look at those recommendations around the interpretation of the registrar the membership the change of name the constitution the rights and powers attached to the membership and various other matters including the alteration of members’ rights we will see it goes to show that despite the public’s view of the parliamentary process the select committee process adds value. It adds value to a bill’s passage. There were some matters that the select committee reported to the House it believed needed tidying up. I have no doubt that the House and the Committee of the whole House will adopt the recommendations of the select committee over the course of the next short while. 
I say in particular if anybody from Farmers’ Mutual Group is listening to this debate that despite a rather focused political debate on many other issues over the last month or two this is one of those occasions when members across the House can actually take some pride in the way they conduct themselves in seeing legislation like this which helps an organisation move through the House as speedily as possible. On that note—unlike the Ministry of Economic Development—I will delay it no longer.
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11185] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 137 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to new section 4(1)(b) in clause 4 be agreed to.
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11187] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 4 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11133] 
13.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Can the Minister confirm that following consultation with the Government Air New Zealand which is 80 percent owned by the Government has recently been flying Australian combat troops who are on deployment to Iraq and how does that fit with Government policy to have nothing to do with combat troops in Iraq or is this some kind of covert foreign policy of plausible denial? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a question for which the Minister of Defence has no responsibility; it is wrongly addressed. 
Hon Bill English 
: The Minister of Defence has already issued a press statement—several hours ago actually—covering this issue in some detail. When we were trying to work out who to ask there was no evidence that the Minister of Foreign Affairs knew anything about it or knew what was going on and it is unlikely he would have remembered if he had been told. But the Minister of Defence had put out a press statement and we had no choice but to direct the question to the Minister who knew what was happening. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With respect that is not a point of order. If the member wants to bandy around insults well anybody can do that but Madam Speaker you should have stopped him in his tracks when he first started 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the Minister of Defence has no responsibility he may transfer the question or he may address it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I was advised shortly before coming to the House that an article is to be produced tomorrow that suggests Air New Zealand undertook a commercial contract to transfer troops from Australia to Kuwait. I understand that if the Australian troops were going to Kuwait then almost inevitably they would have been headed for Iraq. It is not this Government’s position to support such an action by Air New Zealand and in fact Air New Zealand’s action I think is contrary to the wishes and to the views of this Government and maybe this House. However the member will be aware that under the Companies Act it is not within the power of the Minister of Finance to direct Air New Zealand on commercial matters. However it is within the power of this Government to make it absolutely clear to Air New Zealand that its actions as a flag carrier of New Zealand are inappropriate and I intend to do that this afternoon. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There are no supplementary questions. We have come to the end of the time for questions for oral answer. [ 
Interruption 
] It is very difficult to hear. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I seek leave to ask the Minister a supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought is there any objection? Yes there is.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11127] 
9.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on the average annual cost of visiting a general practitioner? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have and the costs have all gone down: from $940 a year for an average family to $440 a year. In other words they have halved. The question that is unanswered however is whether under National they would then double. 
Maryan Street 
: Can New Zealanders be confident that they will continue to access affordable and quality primary health care under Labour? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes they certainly can. I can assure the House that under a Labour-led Government from 2008 access to a general practitioner or to a prescription will remain at the affordable levels that we have now achieved. I repeat that the unanswered question is whether under National the costs of that would then double.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11125] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] My question is to the Minister for Building and Construction— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Show some guts. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Get a life Trevor! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members you will both be leaving the Chamber with this chipping going on. Please be quiet. Would the member please continue with his question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on this matter. There is too much disorder with these comments from all sides which then create disorder. We will hear the question in silence. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is always a starting point to disorder and the comments made by Trevor Mallard are just totally unacceptable. They are extremely out of order. We cannot expect that someone standing up to ask a question should have to listen to that sort of comment and make no comment in return. It is unreasonable. Mr Mallard should be asked to apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member. It has been going on all afternoon so it now finishes. Would the member please ask his question.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11124] 
7.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What new reports has he received on New Zealand committing troops to Iraq? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I have seen the transcript of a Radio Dunedin interview last Friday with Mr Key. In the interview Mr Key explained his statement of 11 February 2003 where he had said he was prepared to commit the SAS and combat troops to Iraq in response to a request from the United States as follows: “The comments they are referring to were comments of me saying effectively ah as I might add a junior—the 27th out of 27; the most junior backbencher in 2003—to my local community newspaper.” That may have been the excuse but it does not explain why he told  
Campbell Live 
 on 28 May 2007—and continues to say—that it had never been his personal view to support sending troops to Iraq. That denial is obviously untrue and misleading and he should simply come clean and admit that. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister advise the House of what else the report states? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The report quotes Mr Key as now claiming that even though he supported the war in Iraq he would not have sent troops there. Again that statement last Friday contradicts his earlier statements and that statement must be misleading and must be untrue. But he also said in the  
Rodney Times 
 on 11 February 2003: “New Zealand should be prepared to fight for the values it believes in.” He is now saying that he believes in the values behind the war but that he would not fight for them. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Minister to repeat his answer in silence. Will the Minister please now complete his answer as succinctly as possible in silence so that we can all hear it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Mr Key having said that New Zealand should be prepared to fight for the values that it believes in is now saying that he believes in the values behind the war but that he would not fight for them. That position would be regarded by friends and allies of New Zealand as a rather gutless one as opposed to not being there for reasons of not supporting the war. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table two relevant documents. The first is a media release this afternoon from Air New Zealand explaining that the mainly Government-owned Air New Zealand sent two charter flights of Australian troops to Kuwait. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Keith Locke 
: I also seek leave to table a release also of this afternoon from  
Investigate 
 magazine saying that the Government was consulted on the sending of Australian— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11120] 
4.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Is it the case that the State Services Commissioner has a “no surprises” obligation under Public Service protocols to brief the Minister on any matters that might draw political comment; if so how can she reconcile this obligation with her previous statement that she was first informed on 3 July of employment issues involving Ms Setchell at the Ministry for the Environment that would have been known to Dr Prebble in late May? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 As I advised the House yesterday the State Services Commissioner has convened an investigation under section 25 of the State Sector Act 1988. This investigation will establish the facts of the matter including how well the commissioner has met his obligations. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister stand by her assertion to this House that she knew nothing of this matter until 3 July and that even though Dr Prebble Mr Logan Mr Rennie Mr Benson-Pope the Leader of the Opposition’s office Mr Hurring and whomever he might have reported to on the ninth floor of the Beehive all knew about it in late May she apparently did not hear about it until 3 July; does she stand by that advice to the House? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I certainly do. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister expect us to believe that although this matter was known obviously to Mr Benson-Pope was quite clearly known to Mr Hurring and to whomever he discussed it with on the ninth floor and was known also to Dr Prebble to Mr Logan to Mr Rennie and to numerous people inside the Ministry for the Environment and numerous people inside the Beehive she as Minister of State Services had not heard of this matter and knew nothing of it until Mr Rennie told her on 3 July? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I do because it is the truth. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the Minister then confirm that the matters relating to Ms Setchell’s employment were never discussed in any context at any time around or near a Cabinet meeting? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have no knowledge of this being raised at a Cabinet committee meeting. If other members do they can certainly say so but I have no memory of that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Further to her response to my question yesterday has she now inquired as to whether Mr Prebble kept file notes on this issue and whether those file notes were handed to Mr Rennie prior to him producing a report that she publicly endorsed on 20 July? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No because I will wait for the outcome of the inquiry where all the facts will be looked at. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If we are to accept that the Minister knew nothing of this matter for the entire 5 weeks between the Benson-Pope outburst and the report from Iain Rennie to the Minister what inspired her after that to ask Mr Rennie to investigate this matter? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: At no time did I ask Mr Rennie to investigate the matter.
Sharples Pita: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sharples Pita: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11161] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chairperson. I would like to speak to the title. The original title was the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill and I think it should have stayed like that because that describes what the bill does and does not do. In fact a good title would be the “Minimum Wage (Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill” because that is exactly what it does. One wants the title to say what the bill actually does. This is no different from Dr Wayne Mapp’s 90-day probationary period legislation which we did not support. This is the same thing. 
The title is wrong. New entrants could be 20-year-olds or they could be 50-year-olds entering into the workforce or into a particular job so having the words “New Entrants” in the title does not really encapsulate the idea of someone of that age but rather the idea of someone entering the workforce. If one goes shearing then one can be a new entrant into shearing at any age. Certainly as a rousie or a presser one can learn in 2 days what one is required to do and go straight into that sort of mahi. Furthermore with the age structure the way it is many Maori fall into that category of youth. So as we multiply as we are doing we will come under this legislation. 
I was really excited when Sue Bradford brought this bill forward because it was Maori Party policy right from the very beginning to remove that discrimination. But the bill does not remove the discrimination at all; it just changes the name. Therefore the title Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill is the wrong name and it should be left as “Minimum Wage (Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill” because that is what it does. Kia ora.