edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Privilege 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Privilege 
[Volume:646;Page:14958] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: On Thursday last week the Hon Bill English raised a point of order about an expression used by the Minister of Health in reply to a supplementary question from the Hon Tony Ryall. I have reviewed the  
Hansard 
 and the expression used was “he should exercise his privileges”—the freedom of speech—“only in exceptional circumstances not to protect his cronies.” Mr English suggested to me that such a remark was unparliamentary and that for a member to suggest that another member had used privilege to further his own self-interest was offensive to the House as a whole. 
I have given some thought as to whether the remark contravenes Standing Order 116 on personal reflections. It is this Standing Order that establishes the context for unparliamentary expressions. Words used robustly in debate but which do not impugn the honour of a member will not be ruled out of order—Speaker’s ruling 39/4. Similarly contestable statements will not automatically be ruled out. Questions for oral answer is a time of particularly robust exchanges in the House. Members’ freedom of speech should not be curtailed unless members’ remarks are offensive on the face of it or strongly insulting. 
The words used by the Minister of Health were in effect a contestable statement. The Minister was questioning Mr Ryall’s evaluation of the public interest in the context of disclosing matter that is the subject of a restraining order. So in that context the words were not contrary to Standing Order 116.
Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Privilege 
Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Privilege 
[Volume:646;Page:14958] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Privilege 
Madam SPEAKER 
: On Thursday last week the Hon Bill English raised a point of order about an expression used by the Minister of Health in reply to a supplementary question from the Hon Tony Ryall. I have reviewed the  
Hansard 
 and the expression used was “he should exercise his privileges”—the freedom of speech—“only in exceptional circumstances not to protect his cronies.” Mr English suggested to me that such a remark was unparliamentary and that for a member to suggest that another member had used privilege to further his own self-interest was offensive to the House as a whole. 
I have given some thought as to whether the remark contravenes Standing Order 116 on personal reflections. It is this Standing Order that establishes the context for unparliamentary expressions. Words used robustly in debate but which do not impugn the honour of a member will not be ruled out of order—Speaker’s ruling 39/4. Similarly contestable statements will not automatically be ruled out. Questions for oral answer is a time of particularly robust exchanges in the House. Members’ freedom of speech should not be curtailed unless members’ remarks are offensive on the face of it or strongly insulting. 
The words used by the Minister of Health were in effect a contestable statement. The Minister was questioning Mr Ryall’s evaluation of the public interest in the context of disclosing matter that is the subject of a restraining order. So in that context the words were not contrary to Standing Order 116.
Wilson Margaret: Voting — Correction 
Wilson Margaret: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:646;Page:14958] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Last Thursday when the House was considering the Building Amendment Bill the result of the vote on the question that the bill be now read a third time was incorrectly announced as Ayes 71 Noes 50. The correct result is Ayes 70 Noes 51.
Clark Helen: Motions — Tibet—Protests 
Clark Helen: Motions — Tibet—Protests 
[Volume:646;Page:14957] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 In reply I say that the Government appreciates the support of other parties for the motion I have moved today but we do distance ourselves from some of the intemperate comments that have been made. I would like to agree strongly with the statement introduced into the debate by Rodney Hide that supporting the opening up of China and its engagement in the international community is probably the most powerful thing we can do to support change in China for the medium and long term. China has an authoritarian political system. It is my hope that in my lifetime that will change because China will be drawn into the world community and its people will be able to travel be educated offshore and see more of the rights that we are able to enjoy in countries like ours. 
New Zealand Governments will always uphold the right of peaceful protest. We will never uphold any right to violent protest. Regardless of whether the protest in Tibet was peaceful or violent the Chinese authorities should react proportionately to that and they should resolve to enter into dialogue with the representatives of the Tibetan people including the Dalai Lama. It is my understanding on advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that the reaction of the New Zealand Government to what has happened in Tibet is at the upper end of reactions from Governments around the world. That is what New Zealanders would expect of us and it is consistent with New Zealand’s being prepared to raise human rights issues with the Chinese leadership and officialdom on a very regular basis. 
Motion agreed to.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:646;Page:14958] 
Voting 
Correction 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Last Thursday when the House was considering the Building Amendment Bill the result of the vote on the question that the bill be now read a third time was incorrectly announced as Ayes 71 Noes 50. The correct result is Ayes 70 Noes 51.
Anderton Jim: Motions — Tibet—Protests 
Anderton Jim: Motions — Tibet—Protests 
[Volume:646;Page:14957] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I will give just a brief response from the Progressive Party. I think the House does not need to think very long or hard to understand that during the Cultural Revolution when China was more isolated than in any other time in recent history things got worse for the Chinese people not better and worse for others around them not better. It is by opening up the Chinese economy and society to contact with other nations whether be through the Olympic Games or through free-trade agreements that we will make the most advances in relation to China joining the Western World in terms of democratic processes and so on. So I think the Prime Minister the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Trade in leading that engagement are doing the work that all New Zealanders would want them to do and I can only applaud them for it.
Hide Rodney: Motions — Tibet—Protests 
Hide Rodney: Motions — Tibet—Protests 
[Volume:646;Page:14956] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT party I rise to support the Prime Minister’s statement today. I also join with the Green Party United Future and the Maori Party in saying that ACT wishes the condemnation would grow stronger. We wish that we—as a Parliament and as a country—and our Government would stand up for human rights everywhere particularly against Governments that are so keen to suppress them with such uncalled for violence. But we disagree with the Maori Party the Green Party and United Future that we should somehow de-link the free-trade agreement and use the Olympics to make something of a political statement. 
I leave the House with this thought. Far more has been done for human rights in China with China opening its borders up to the world than by it keeping itself closed. As the Chinese people see the world around them unfiltered by their Government they actually gain an appreciation of human rights and the virtues of democracy. That is the charge that New Zealand should lead with free trade contact and sporting contact with the Chinese people. We should bear in mind that it is not the Chinese people who are actually committing these atrocities; it is the Chinese State Government. The interactions with trade and sport reach across to the people of China. 
So yes let us condemn these atrocities and stand up for the human rights of the Tibetan people—and indeed the Chinese people who are so oppressed—but let us see that with free trade and with sporting contact we are in fact advancing the cause of human rights everywhere. Thank you.
Key John: Motions — Tibet—Protests 
Key John: Motions — Tibet—Protests 
[Volume:646;Page:14952] 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 On behalf of the National Party I join the Government in voicing concern at the violence and loss of life in Tibet over recent days. Although the official reports are not yet clear as to the level of casualties or indeed the precise origins of some of the conflict what is clear is that the Chinese Government has engaged in a substantial imposition of military force in Tibet on a scale and in a manner that is unacceptable to the vast majority of New Zealanders. In supporting this motion today I want to make it very clear that the National Party supports the right of the citizens of Tibet to peaceful protest and calls upon the Government of China to respect that right. 
It has been a matter of some comment that these unfortunate events occur as New Zealand concludes negotiations for a free-trade arrangement with China. The National Party supports those negotiations as it supports free-trade negotiations generally because they can only advance New Zealand’s interests as a small nation very dependent on its capacity to trade. Nothing we have seen in Tibet in recent days affects that bipartisan support for the free-trade agreement but neither do the free-trade agreement negotiations affect our right—indeed our obligation—to speak up when we see a small group of people who are substantially unable to defend themselves treated in a manner that we find by our standards totally reprehensible. 
So today I urge the Chinese Government to heed the expressions of alarm in this country and many others. I urge it to respect the human rights of the citizens of Tibet and I urge it to seek dialogue rather than the imposition of force as the path towards solving the longstanding disputes in Tibet.
Vote: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15113] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.name changed to Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill
Vote: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15105] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15105] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Harawira Hone: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
Harawira Hone: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15104] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Is this the Human Tissue Bill? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That was the Human Tissue Bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: My apologies. Am I allowed to record the Maori Party’s opposition to the bill? I thought we were still doing the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes we have been moving fairly quickly. I suggest you seek leave to do that. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I seek leave to record the Maori Party’s vote on the Human Tissue Bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Are you going to call for a party vote? 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Yes please. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: On both questions? On clauses 1 and 2? 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The decisions made in the last 2 or 3 minutes are null and void. We will go back to the start.
Simich Clem: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15104] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The question is that clauses 1 and 2 be agreed to. The first question is that clause 1 be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion please say “Aye” of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Ayes have it. The question now is that clause 2 be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion please say “Aye” of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Ayes have it. I shall report this bill with amendment.
Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15104] 
Human Tissue Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 11 March. 
Clauses 1 and 2 ( 
continued 
)  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The question is that clauses 1 and 2 be agreed to. The first question is that clause 1 be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion please say “Aye” of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Ayes have it. The question now is that clause 2 be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion please say “Aye” of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Ayes have it. I shall report this bill with amendment. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Is this the Human Tissue Bill? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That was the Human Tissue Bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: My apologies. Am I allowed to record the Maori Party’s opposition to the bill? I thought we were still doing the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes we have been moving fairly quickly. I suggest you seek leave to do that. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I seek leave to record the Maori Party’s vote on the Human Tissue Bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Are you going to call for a party vote? 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Yes please. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: On both questions? On clauses 1 and 2? 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The decisions made in the last 2 or 3 minutes are null and void. We will go back to the start. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Dyson Ruth: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15095] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I take the opportunity to take a brief call in the Committee stage of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill and to speak to Part 1 which deals with clauses 3 to 7. I first of all acknowledge the work of the Social Services Committee and in fact all parties in the Chamber who have indicated support for the principle of this measure which is to prevent unnecessary debt from being incurred by beneficiaries. 
The part that we are dealing with is primarily in relation to the Department of Corrections but the other two organisations that the legislation deals with are the New Zealand Customs Service and the Accident Compensation Corporation. The aim is to ensure that the information matches between those three organisations—the Department of Corrections the New Zealand Customs Service the Accident Compensation Corporation and of course the Ministry of Social Development—have increased efficiency. The point of the part that we are debating at the present time is primarily to prevent debt being incurred by people in receipt of a benefit who go into prison. As the two previous speakers have indicated the timeliness of the information exchange is critical in ensuring that that person does not get into debt unnecessarily. 
The second point I want to make is that legislation like this has a principled purpose. It is good to see that all parties are supporting that purpose of ensuring that beneficiaries are not incurring debt that could be avoided. But I have to say that behind the principle the legislation and the procedure that has gone through the select committee and is now before the Chamber are a lot of very hard-working public servants officials and people who have been on the receiving end of a lot of very unfortunate attacks over recent times. So I take the opportunity to thank not just the select committee for its work and the other parties in the Chamber for being so conscientious in ensuring that where they do agree on the principle of legislation they put their petty party politicking to one side and support it constructively as they certainly have with this legislation. I also hope those parties might take the opportunity to thank the public servants who have no opportunity ever to respond to the attacks that they come under—in particular from the National Party and the first speaker in this debate Judith Collins. 
I want to refer to Supplementary Order Paper 184 in my name which is a technical Supplementary Order Paper. In case members have not had the opportunity to read it I point out that it simplifies references to sentences of imprisonment; it omits references to corrective training which was removed by the Sentencing Act of 2002; and it corrects a cross-reference that was made in error. With those brief comments I commend the progress of this bill to the Committee.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:646;Page:15092] 
Business of the House 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House for Shane Jones to take the Committee Chairperson’s position. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Is leave agreed to? 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is it to take the Chair? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: It is to take the Chair of the Committee of the whole House. We are about to shift into the Committee of the whole House. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Madam Assistant Speaker this is really really unusual. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Yes it is unusual. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I am loath to give leave to make a precedent. [ 
Interruption 
] This is actually a point of order Madam Assistant Speaker. I am loath to give leave for what I believe is a precedent-setting event like this. I have never seen it in my time in the House. I know I have not been here for very long this second time but I am just wondering whether if we get into this it may become a habit. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you very much. I understand the point of order the member is making but I reassure him that it does not set a precedent. Is leave given for the Hon Shane Jones to be Chair of the Committee? There is objection. We will just have to wait until Mr Simich comes. I am sorry about that but leave has been refused for a temporary Chairperson to be appointed. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When a person denies leave in the House it is his or her right to do that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Absolutely. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: On several occasions you have without naming me—but there are cameras so that makes it a wee bit difficult—indicated that I am the culprit in this. Can I assure the House that I denied leave for the reasons I gave before. I hope that the House is not trying to hang me out to dry as the bad guy. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I would never consider that at all in regard to the member. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I seek some clarification maybe not right now but when we get to look into it a bit more of the whole process of who comes and when he or she sits in the Chair? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Yes I am willing to either do a report to the House or just talk to the member quietly.
Henare Tau: Business of the House 
Henare Tau: Business of the House 
[Volume:646;Page:15093] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I seek some clarification maybe not right now but when we get to look into it a bit more of the whole process of who comes and when he or she sits in the Chair? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Yes I am willing to either do a report to the House or just talk to the member quietly.
Moroney Sue: Business of the House 
Moroney Sue: Business of the House 
[Volume:646;Page:15092] 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House for Shane Jones to take the Committee Chairperson’s position. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Is leave agreed to?
Henare Tau: Business of the House 
Henare Tau: Business of the House 
[Volume:646;Page:15092] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is it to take the Chair? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: It is to take the Chair of the Committee of the whole House. We are about to shift into the Committee of the whole House. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Madam Assistant Speaker this is really really unusual. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Yes it is unusual. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I am loath to give leave to make a precedent. [ 
Interruption 
] This is actually a point of order Madam Assistant Speaker. I am loath to give leave for what I believe is a precedent-setting event like this. I have never seen it in my time in the House. I know I have not been here for very long this second time but I am just wondering whether if we get into this it may become a habit. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you very much. I understand the point of order the member is making but I reassure him that it does not set a precedent. Is leave given for the Hon Shane Jones to be Chair of the Committee? There is objection. We will just have to wait until Mr Simich comes. I am sorry about that but leave has been refused for a temporary Chairperson to be appointed.
Henare Tau: Business of the House 
Henare Tau: Business of the House 
[Volume:646;Page:15093] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When a person denies leave in the House it is his or her right to do that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Absolutely. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: On several occasions you have without naming me—but there are cameras so that makes it a wee bit difficult—indicated that I am the culprit in this. Can I assure the House that I denied leave for the reasons I gave before. I hope that the House is not trying to hang me out to dry as the bad guy. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I would never consider that at all in regard to the member.
Turei Metiria: Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15092] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I take just a short call to say that the Green Party will support the second reading of the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill. 
Bill read a second time.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15080] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15080] 
Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15080] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 9 and schedules be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 1 to 9 and schedules agreed to.
Dyson Ruth: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15080] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 In the couple of minutes that I might have I am very privileged to speak in this financial review debate. I will begin by acknowledging all the members of the Social Services Committee particularly those who have spoken today. That committee is extraordinarily ably chaired by Russell Fairbrother. I also acknowledge members of other parties who have contributed very constructively in areas where we put party politics aside and work for the best interests particularly of children and young people. So I acknowledge that.  
I will respond in particular to a point that Judy Turner just made in her contribution where she wished for the Office for Disability Issues to be established within the Ministry of Social Development as opposed to the Ministry of Health. I can tell the member that her wish has been granted. It was established there and it will remain there. As the Minister for Disability Issues I give her that commitment. The advocacy the oversight—the whole-of-Government office—is within the Ministry of Social Development and the member is absolutely right: it is the best place for the Office for Disability Issues.  
I will talk about a number of issues in relation to this financial review and the first is the Pathways to Partnership new funding model and new funding level to which our Government has made a commitment with our non-governmental organisations as recently announced by the Prime Minister. That involved a substantial amount of new money so that contracted essential services will now be fully funded for the first time ever. This is a huge investment in early intervention and family support for better support to be given particularly to children and young people but also to their families.  
Report noted.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15054] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I can understand the member’s sensitivity because that clearly was not a personal explanation. I never accused him of supporting genocide. I said he supported the Khmer Rouge regime and that article quite clearly states that he supported the takeover by the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. The member has to stop being so sensitive about what he wrote himself in 1975. He suggests that I was involved. I was a member of the Labour Party which had long since got New Zealand out of Viet Nam by that stage. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well this is all very interesting but it is actually not a point of order. It is a debatable matter.
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15053] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Well after the question I asked earlier on where there was an exchange between Michael Cullen and myself Michael Cullen tabled a document and given the delay in tabling that document I wish to make a personal explanation on the matter. The document that was tabled does not indicate that I supported Pol Pot in his genocide as I think was intended by the member who tabled it. It was an article written in April of 1975 when the quite corrupt regimes in Saigon and Phnom Penh fell and new Governments came to power. I like most of the people active in the anti - Viet Nam war movement including Michael Cullen Phil Goff and people such as Maurice Williamson or Brian Donnelly who was previously in this House had the same position where they hoped the new Governments would be an improvement on the old Governments. There was no knowledge of Pol Pot and no knowledge of genocide at that stage. 
My personal explanation is that—and it ties in with the other accusation of Michael Cullen that I supported the Chinese Government and the Cultural Revolution and that somehow he knew that from when I was at university with him. In fact the Cultural Revolution was after that time when I was at a university in Canada and I was very critical and active against what the Chinese Government was doing then. There is no truth to that accusation. I think it is important perhaps that the House knows this to stop the attempt to red-bait me on various issues. Michael Cullen knows this very well because he was a friend of our family and knew well my mother and my father Elsie and Jack Locke. 
I think he should know that what has driven me to be a campaigner for human rights over the last 50 years is sitting by the radio in 1956—and this is important—when my mother was a member of the Communist Party and anguished as the Russian tanks entered Hungary and shot down the people in the streets. She left the Communist Party over that. That was a formative time for me in understanding human rights. Since that time I have never supported one-party Government dictatorships and people who violate human rights. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the member has made his point. I just remind members that this is the second personal statement we have had today and if they wish to take this route in the future they should refer to Speaker’s ruling 126/1.
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15048] 
10.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Can he confirm that total child support debt is now over $1.2 billion including $471.9 million in assessment debt and how does the level of assessment debt compare with 1999? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 Yes I can confirm that the member is correct. The level of liable-parent assessment debt in 1999 was $179.2 million. The growth in assessment debt has however slowed over the last few years. It was 3.1 percent in the year ended June 2007 which compares with 15.7 percent and 8.1 percent in the years ended 30 June 2005 and 30 June 2006 respectively. 
Judith Collins 
: Does he agree that the $300 million increase in assessment debt since Labour took office confirms that this Government does not take seriously the collection of child support? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: No I do not agree with that. In fact a number of steps have been taken to improve the collection of child support debt. I refer to the legislation that was passed in the House in 2006 that enabled long-term penalties to be written off if parents entered into arrangements to repay their debt more quickly—legislation that the member’s party opposed. 
Judith Collins 
: Does he stand by his statement made last week and again today that the legislation to allow write-offs of penalty debt has been extremely successful; if so can he explain why child support debt has continued to increase dramatically since that legislation was passed? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: What I can confirm is that since that legislation was passed and came into effect the rate of growth of assessment debt has actually slowed. 
Judith Collins 
: Does he agree that the increase in the number of child support debtors since Labour took office and the disgraceful level of debt are because this Government which he supports makes it far too easy for 120000 delinquent parents to walk away from the responsibilities they owe to their children? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It may come as a surprise to the member to know that in 1999 the number of paying parents was 130068 and in the year ended January 2008 the figure had reduced to 124541. 
Judith Collins 
: Does he agree with the principle that applies in Australia that parents need to know that they cannot leave their child support debt behind when they leave the country; if he does not agree with that principle why does he not agree with it? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I do agree with that principle. That is why we passed legislation to allow for data matching with the Customs Service for those who are coming and going from the country. It is also why since the reciprocal agreement between Australia and New Zealand has been in effect some 8000 cases are being collected in Australia and the Inland Revenue Department is collecting 3500 cases in New Zealand. Those are very good figures.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15048] 
9.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received regarding reductions in spending on the unemployment benefit? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have seen a report that states that this Government saved New Zealand taxpayers $164 million over the 15 months to December 2007. That was the result of over 18000 people moving off the unemployment benefit during that period—that is 40 people a day. Under a Labour-Progressive Government fewer people are reliant on a benefit because more people are moving into paid work. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What has the Government done to support New Zealanders who have moved into low-income jobs? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Not only is our Government moving record numbers of New Zealanders into paid work but we have also made sure that that work really pays. I will give two examples. The Working for Families tax credits have made a real difference to working families such as a couple on a benefit with two children under 5. If one parent got a full-time job earning around $850 gross a week the Working for Families tax credits would make that family better off by $300 a week. We have also increased the minimum wage every year since 1999 and on 1 April this year the adult minimum wage will be increased to $12 an hour—that is $5 an hour more than in 1999. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a report on the massive increase in the spending on the sickness and invalids benefits under this Government. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15041] 
METIRIA TUREI (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to ask you to perhaps give some further consideration to your ruling this afternoon that it is within the Standing Orders for a member to take personal offence at being called a name but not when an observation on a political position concerning that member is taken. It strikes me that any such observation is just as likely to be a false accusation designed to impugn a member’s reputation and bring that member into disrepute and that he or she is therefore entitled to take personal offence at that comment and to ask the member who made that comment observation or false accusation to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the member’s point. I am happy to do that.
Jones Dail: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15391] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this legislation. Copyright is of extreme value to those artists in our society who have the intellectual capacity to come up with original work that we can all enjoy. In our modern society it is a question of how that original work especially music can be conveyed. For example even as I speak much of that work is being conveyed through radios in many vehicles on motorways around New Zealand. I expect it is being conveyed to Auckland motorists enjoying the extensions to the motorways that have been developed subsequent to the legislation introduced in the 2002-05 term. It ensured the development of motorways in the Auckland area and improvements to travel are being experienced as a result. I tell those people to enjoy the music. 
This legislation is all about copyright. It will encourage writers of music bands and suchlike to create more music so that people can enjoy themselves as they drive a little more quickly on the motorways than they were able to do in the past. Motorists may strike some difficulties around the Esmonde Road turn-off where hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent as a result of the improvements in the amount of money being spent on motorways thanks to New Zealand First’s involvement in cooperation with Labour. One has to be most disappointed that that legislation was not supported by the National Party in 2004. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Corrections (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill Customs and Excise (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Corrections (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill Customs and Excise (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:646;Page:15387] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Corrections (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill the Customs and Excise (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill and the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bills read a third time.
Vote: Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 4) Hazardous Substances and New Organisms  Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Vote: Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 4) Hazardous Substances and New Organisms  Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:646;Page:15366] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 4) Hazardous Substances and New Organisms  Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Vote: Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 4) Hazardous Substances and New Organisms  Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:646;Page:15366] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a third time.
Sio Su'a William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sio Su'a William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15354] 
11.  
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Pacific Island Affairs 
: Has she received any reports on how Pacific Island people in New Zealand are benefiting from the policies taking effect from 1 April 2008? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) 
: 
 I have seen reports that show a number of significant initiatives that have come into force just this week are delivering for our Pacific Island communities. The date 1 April marked the commencement of employer contributions to KiwiSaver and the tax credits for employers that go with them. We are supporting our Pacific Island people to develop a culture of savings and a plan for the future. Pacific Island workers are also benefiting from the ninth increase in 8 years to the minimum wage and the company tax rate has been cut for the first time since Labour was last in office. Those developments combined with the research and development tax credits which also came into force on 1 April allow businesses including Pacific Island businesses to invest more in their workers and in their long-term success. All these policies were opposed by National. 
Su’a 
 William Sio 
: What other reports has she received on the effectiveness for Pacific Island people of Government policy? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: I have received the latest Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs report on the effectiveness for Pacific Island people of Government policy. It shows that as a result of initiatives including the Work and Income Pacific Wave strategy there has been a 47 percent decrease in the number of Pacific Island people receiving unemployment-related benefits in Auckland in the year to June 2007. The report—and this is really good news—also shows growth in Pacific Island tertiary level achievement with the number of qualifications completed at Bachelor of Arts and postgraduate qualification levels between 2001 and 2005 increasing by 27 percent. The number of Pacific Island employees participating in industry training also increased by over 11 percent to June 2007. These people now have a more secure future because of improvement in skills and training—[ 
Interruption 
] Come on get off the deficit thinking you lot!
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15352] 
9.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector 
: How will the tax changes introduced on 1 April 2008 support the community and voluntary sector? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 Changes to tax rules on charitable donations will be a real boost to charities and other non-profit organisations. New Zealanders are already generous with their time money and in-kind donation. These changes support and encourage that generosity. Our community organisations provide valuable services and support in a wide range of areas. This is another way in which our Government is working in partnership with the community and voluntary sector to deliver the best possible outcomes for our individuals families and communities. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What else is the Government doing to support the community and voluntary sector? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Labour-led Government is rolling out a new funding model for these community organisations which provide essential services for vulnerable families children and young people. Under that new model we are investing $446 million additional funding over 4 years in community organisations. The new model will support early intervention working together and a clear focus on outcomes for families. 
Paula Bennett 
: Can we now assume that the Government no longer holds the view that National’s policy on the tax treatment of charities is Tory charity given the Government’s decision to adopt National’s policy that was first announced in February 2007 or is this just the cut and paste Government? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No the member should not assume that in the same way she should not have assumed that full funding was the same as the policy announced by John Key which was to encourage community organisations to put in a bid in a competitive tendering round at a full-funding level knowing full well they would never be granted that contract if they followed that process.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:646;Page:15339] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
Next week in the House priority will be given to the third readings of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill and the Human Tissue Bill the remaining stages of the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill and the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill and the first reading of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:646;Page:15339] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
Next week in the House priority will be given to the third readings of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill and the Human Tissue Bill the remaining stages of the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill and the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill and the first reading of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill.
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Tumu Putaura 
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Tumu Putaura 
[Volume:646;Page:15339] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 1 April of security officer Tumu Putaura a member of the Parliamentary Service for more than 21 years. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with relatives of the late staff member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Obituaries — Tumu Putaura 
Obituaries — Tumu Putaura 
[Volume:646;Page:15339] 
Thursday 3 April 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Tumu Putaura 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 1 April of security officer Tumu Putaura a member of the Parliamentary Service for more than 21 years. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with relatives of the late staff member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Vote: Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16211] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 14 
New Zealand National 1 (Connell); New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47(Ardern Auchinvole Bennett D Bennett P Blue Blumsky Borrows Brownlee Carter D Carter J Clarkson Coleman Collins Dean English Finlayson Foss Goodhew Goudie Groser Guy Hayes Heatley Henare Hutchison Key King C Mapp McCully Peachey Power Rich Roy E Ryall Shanks Simich Smith L Smith N te Heuheu Tisch Tolley Tremain Wagner Wilkinson Williamson Wong Worth); Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to.