edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:649;Page:18114] 
5. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 on behalf of  
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What reports has he received on reaction to proposals to extend high-speed broadband uptake in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 Labour’s plan to ensure that all New Zealanders have access to faster cheaper broadband has been widely welcomed. Michael Cranna the managing director of broadband performance measurement company Epitro called our plans “ambitious but achievable”. Ernie Newman of the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand said the Government’s scheme is “particularly focused on rural people and we think that is a good move”. Media are also heralding the arrival of a third mobile player with Telstra announcing expanded operations this week. I understand that the National Party spokesman on telecommunications is not allowed to comment. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has he seen any reports on reaction to alternative proposals to extend broadband uptake? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes. This morning I saw another report criticising the National Party’s broadband policy as “political opportunism and a lot of hype”. That report was from the chief executive of the No. 3 telecommunications company TelstraClear’s Allan Freeth who stated that Kiwis know where they stand with Labour—unlike with National which now says that it could be up to a year after the election before we know what it would actually do. Labour tells the public before the election. Labour’s plan is working. There is $3 billion of investment with another $1.5 billion leveraged by our funding. The Labour-led Government is committed to encouraging real competition not a monopoly utility. I seek leave to table a newspaper article with today’s date from TelstraClear noting that the National Party plan— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:649;Page:18113] 
4.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the National Party that “it’s almost certain they got a tip from the Serious Fraud Office that it was about to move”; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 As has been widely reported in the media gossip was rife in Wellington by last Tuesday night that the Serious Fraud Office was poised to announce a formal investigation. I have little doubt that the National Party was aware of that. 
John Key 
: What evidence does the Prime Minister have given that she said she is not dealing in rumour that the Serious Fraud Office Crown Law or the police leaked material to the Opposition; if she cannot produce any such evidence will she apologise to those bodies for besmirching their good reputations? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Somebody somewhere in the government system had to be responsible for this matter leaking out into the public arena. We know that rumours were widely circulating at a function on the Tuesday night that many National MPs attended and I find it interesting that Mr Key moved the next day telling his colleagues that time was of the essence. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that it is a very serious matter for the Prime Minister to accuse the Serious Fraud Office of acting improperly at a time when that agency is investigating a political party with which she is in a governing relationship and whose leader was her Minister of Foreign Affairs; and can she explain exactly on what basis she made these outrageous and unfair accusations? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I find it impossible to believe that the timing was a coincidence. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that in fact two members of this House were tipped off in advance that the Serious Fraud Office was about to commence its investigation and that those two members were the Rt Hon Helen Clark and the Hon Dr Michael Cullen? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes; at 5 o’clock on Wednesday after Mr Key had done his grandstanding. I can assure him that neither of us was the source of his information. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister also confirm that on the basis of this knowledge she decided to reveal what she had been hiding since February—that Mr Glenn had told her that Mr Peters had asked him for a donation—knowing that the only thing that would push such a startling confession from the headlines was the announcement of the Serious Fraud Office investigation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I know that Mr Key and Mr English very seldom speak or share any confidence but I advise Mr Key that Mr English himself raised the question to which I responded in the House.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:649;Page:18112] 
3.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he agree with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Kaiwhakahaere Mark Solomon that the emissions trading scheme represents a significant threat to both the integrity and finality of their 1998 settlement; if not why? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 No I do not agree for several reasons. The compensation package we have negotiated around the emissions trading scheme has substantially reduced the scheme’s impact on Ngai Tahu. It is true that a live issue remains around whether the Crown had information about the Kyoto Protocol at the time the settlement was signed with Ngai Tahu in 1998 that was not disclosed to Ngai Tahu. That is why the Crown has agreed to open its books to ascertain whether that was the case. If this assertion is correct then the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations will address the matter. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What response will the Minister make to Ngai Tahu to address their analysis that the emissions trading scheme legislation would “literally wipe tens of millions of dollars off the value of the forestry assets we received as part of our settlement.”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That too is a moot point. The amount of compensation in the form of deforestation emission units which are a valuable commodity was close to doubled in the final package and the economics of some of the land conversion proposals that Ngai Tahu rely upon for their assessment of loss assume water availability for dairy conversions that is by no means certain. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What advice has the Minister received from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to suggest that the scheme could leave the Crown open to substantial claims because the value of the land handed to iwi under Treaty of Waitangi settlements could be substantially decreased? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do not accept the assertion in that question. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What assurance can the Minister provide tangata whenua that the provisions of the bill relating to pre-1990 forested Maori land are not a confiscation contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi and are not ultra vires to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 when the owners’ submissions have advised the House that the scheme is an alienation without their required consent of 75 percent? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: A large number of iwi have exactly the opposite view and believe that the compensation package under the emissions trading scheme is a net benefit to them rather than a net cost.
Wilson Margaret: Resignations — Brian Connell Rakaia 
Wilson Margaret: Resignations — Brian Connell Rakaia 
[Volume:649;Page:18109] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Brian Connell resigning his seat in the House with effect at the close of 31 August.
Resignations — Brian Connell Rakaia 
Resignations — Brian Connell Rakaia 
[Volume:649;Page:18109] 
Tuesday 2 September 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Resignations 
Brian Connell Rakaia 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Brian Connell resigning his seat in the House with effect at the close of 31 August.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18096] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Bill read a second time.
Burton Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Burton Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:649;Page:18072] 
9.  
Hon MARK BURTON (Labour—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received about support for early childhood education? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen a report of a recent visit by a member of this House to an early childhood teacher diploma class in Napier. While there the member described the early childhood education teacher trainees as glorified babysitters. Research clearly shows the critical importance of high-quality care and education for our youngest children. Craig Foss should be ashamed of himself. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Can the Minister tell the House what other reports he has seen about the importance of trained teachers in early childhood education? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have seen a report from the New Zealand Childcare Association expressing dismay at National’s plans to loosen requirements for trained teachers for very young children and early childhood education stating: “We are appalled by the idea that children under the age of 2 need fewer qualified teachers.”
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:649;Page:18068] 
6.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes; compared with 10 years ago when National was in Government the escape rate has fallen by 84 percent positive random drug tests have fallen from 34 percent in 1998 to 14 percent serious assaults on staff have fallen by 90 percent and much more. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Minister be confident in the management of his department when since May there have been six prison escapes including an escape using a knotted sheet and at least 11 incidents where guards and inmates have been assaulted including the hospitalisation of staff members with eye injuries fractured skulls and stab wounds? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: He can have confidence because there has been a dramatic decrease in the escape rate; it has fallen from 84 percent since the National Government was in office. He can also have confidence because serious assaults on both staff and prisoners are a fraction of what they were 10 years ago. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Minister be confident in the management of his department when following a very serious assault on a guard at Paremoremo prison on 19 July neither the prison nor the unit in which the assault occurred was locked down until there was a riot 3 weeks later and four prisoners were stabbed? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There will always be difficulties in prisons and prison guards do their best to manage those issues at the time. It is very easy for a member of Parliament sitting in the comfort of his chair to make judgments after the event. 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm that since 2005 his department has been unable to say how many contraband items have been found in prisons because the department no longer collates the information; and can he confirm that although there are plans to install an electronic system to gather the information the department “ is currently not in a position to provide a time line on this”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot confirm that but I can confirm that the Government has done a lot to crack down on contraband including cellphone jamming telephone monitoring single points of entry perimeter fences electronic security devices cameras closed-circuit television video motion-detectors microwave sensors and extra electronic barrier arms.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:649;Page:18063] 
2.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What reports has he received on support for an emissions trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Both New Zealand First and the Greens have confirmed they will support the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. I commend both parties for their principled support and I believe that more robust legislation has resulted from our talks. I am confident that we have an excellent piece of legislation that will well equip New Zealand to meet the challenge of climate change. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What further reports has the Minister seen on support for an emissions trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: This morning I heard Nick Smith say that climate change is a huge issue and that emissions trading is the correct way forward. But that is all talk; when it comes to doing something about it National has completely abrogated its responsibilities. It claims to have six principles it would incorporate into an emissions trading scheme but it has negotiated on none. Those six principles were always just six excuses. We have worked with parties that take climate change seriously for the benefit of all New Zealanders. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister tell the House that the support from the New Zealand First Party is “principled” when it is blindingly obvious to every political commentator and parliamentarian that the deal is that Helen Clark will turn a blind eye and leave the leader of New Zealand First as Minister of Foreign Affairs in exchange for his backing the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Because amongst other things my confidence that New Zealand First would back this legislation arose from a meeting that I had personally with Mr Winston Peters some months ago before these other allegations were swirling around. The reality here is that once again we have caught National members saying one thing and doing another—this time it is on climate change—just as they have done on superannuation KiwiSaver asset sales the minimum wage and doctors’ fees.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:649;Page:18057] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The only member at risk of exploding in the House is that member for a variety of reasons. I am assured the Government has the numbers to pass the bill and indeed one of the National Party’s favourite bloggers was boasting in a somewhat inebriated state I understand that the National Party will shortly announce that it will support the emissions trading bill.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:649;Page:18057] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next Tuesday priority will be given to the consideration in Committee of the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. Following that it is the Government’s intention to take urgency to progress several bills currently on the Order Paper. I will give further advice in the early part of next week about the bills to be included.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:649;Page:18057] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of the work programme next week and I ask him two questions. First can he assure the House that the Government does have the numbers to pass the emissions trading bill and can he say whether the compromise made in order to achieve that has been considerable or inconsiderable? Second can he tell us whether the Prime Minister intends to return to this House some time between now and when the House either dissolves or explodes before the election?
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:649;Page:18057] 
Thursday 28 August 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next Tuesday priority will be given to the consideration in Committee of the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. Following that it is the Government’s intention to take urgency to progress several bills currently on the Order Paper. I will give further advice in the early part of next week about the bills to be included. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of the work programme next week and I ask him two questions. First can he assure the House that the Government does have the numbers to pass the emissions trading bill and can he say whether the compromise made in order to achieve that has been considerable or inconsiderable? Second can he tell us whether the Prime Minister intends to return to this House some time between now and when the House either dissolves or explodes before the election? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The only member at risk of exploding in the House is that member for a variety of reasons. I am assured the Government has the numbers to pass the bill and indeed one of the National Party’s favourite bloggers was boasting in a somewhat inebriated state I understand that the National Party will shortly announce that it will support the emissions trading bill.
Vote: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18055] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Russel Norman to clause 2 be agreed to: 
To omit this clause and substitute the following new clause: 
Commencement 
Part 3 (other than section 39) and section 60 come into force on 1 July 2009. 
(2)The rest of this Act (including section 39) comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 223 in the name of Dr Russel Norman to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18055] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Turei Metiria: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18054] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Norman Russel William: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Norman Russel William: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18051] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call. Obviously there have been a few changes around the amendments since we last discussed the Waste Minimisation Bill. Around clause 2 which is the commencement clause we have replaced Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Nicky Wagner—it has now been withdrawn and I thank the member for that—with a new amendment which I have tabled here tonight. It is a typed amendment that will deal with some of the problems that were identified by that member’s Supplementary Order Paper and as well will make a small change around clause 39. I hope everyone has caught up with that one. 
The second issue concerns the definition of “waste”. There has been very considerable discussion around the definition of “waste” which was originally initiated by Supplementary Order Paper 219 in the name of Nicky Wagner. The definition would have created some real problems with regard to the legislation. After discussion amongst the Scrap Metal Recycling Association the Government the Minister’s office and the officials of Local Government New Zealand and various other parties we have now come up with a new Supplementary Order Paper 223 in my name which I hope—which I am sure—will meet everyone’s concerns. I know that Local Government New Zealand still has some concerns about this Supplementary Order Paper but I am hopeful that the ministry will actually use its powers to collect the information that it needs in order to get the information that local government needs. 
So I would ask members to support those two amendments—that is the new Supplementary Order Paper 223 and the amendment to clause 2 which relates to the commencement dates.
Mackey Moana: Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18046] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a very short call on this Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill as chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I appreciated the in-depth history we just heard. This bill was very simple to deal with at the select committee. We had an approximately 35-second submission from the Christchurch City Council and we addressed all its concerns. 
I say “Best of luck!” to the good people of Christchurch and Canterbury in their bid for a Rugby World Cup game. Of course I look forward to the Poverty Bay Rugby Football Union holding a pool game and I invite all members to come to Gisborne and the East Coast to see what real grassroots rugby is like. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Vote: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18042] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill be now read a second time and a third time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Bill read a second time and a third time.
Mallard Trevor: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18040] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I will speak briefly in support of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. I will plead guilty to some discomfort about being in the division lobbies effectively with Rodney Hide. When the House is divided that is not a place that I am used to being in. 
I compliment the leadership of Auckland in the social cultural and sporting area on getting its act together. Speaking as a Wellingtonian I say that it is something that we are not very used to seeing Aucklanders doing and it is something that we very much welcome. 
I will make a very brief comment about the National Party. I do not think that I have heard more of an AC/DC approach to legislation than its approach. Those members just cannot make up their minds. I will tell them that when there is a picket fence around if one tries to be on both sides of it then one ends up with unfortunate injuries. I think the National Party is in that position at the moment.
Locke Keith: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18036] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. The organisations that I have talked to such as Auckland Zoo the rescue helicopter and the Auckland observatory are very good organisations that need to receive more regular funding. As was said in the previous speech the outlying cities are governed by not wanting to increase their rates. Quite a lot of freeloading is going on because the amenities tend to be naturally concentrated in the centre of the region. This bill is the best way forward at the moment. The situation may change with the new regional structure but the Green Party certainly supports the legislation at present.
Vote: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Vote: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18028] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
New clause 2A not agreed to.
Jones Dail: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18027] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thought we were debating that between the second and the third readings. Is it to be debated now? [ 
Interruption 
] I want to vote against that. I would like to clarify this. I have no problem with the motion being put but when will it be put? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The motion will be put now. The motion to accept that amendment will be put now. 
DAIL JONES 
: New Zealand First does not support that amendment. 
Rodney Hide 
: Sit down! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Mr Hide I really take exception to your behaviour. Would you mind not calling things out. 
DAIL JONES 
: When will the question be put? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The question will be put now. Leave has been sought— 
Dail Jones 
: Leave has been sought— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Can I just finish this. Mr Jones sit down. Leave has been sought for the House to consider an amendment without debate. Is there any objection to that leave being sought? There is no objection. The question is that the amendment to insert new clause 2A be agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18027] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Hon Judith Tizard (Auckland Central) 
: I seek leave for the House to consider without debate an amendment to the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill to insert a new clause 2A requiring the bill to expire on 1 July 2012. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Copeland Gordon: Points of Order — Citizens Initiated Referendum on Smacking—Date 
Copeland Gordon: Points of Order — Citizens Initiated Referendum on Smacking—Date 
[Volume:649;Page:18027] 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to move—and I have notified all parties of this—members’ motion No. 3 in my name recommending that the referendum on the criminalisation of smacking be held on the day of the 2008 general election. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Points of Order — Citizens Initiated Referendum on Smacking—Date 
Points of Order — Citizens Initiated Referendum on Smacking—Date 
[Volume:649;Page:18027] 
Points of Order 
Citizens Initiated Referendum on Smacking—Date 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to move—and I have notified all parties of this—members’ motion No. 3 in my name recommending that the referendum on the criminalisation of smacking be held on the day of the 2008 general election. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Finlayson Christopher: General Debate 
Finlayson Christopher: General Debate 
[Volume:649;Page:18023] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: He is not a member of the Labour Party but I will withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am sorry would the member withdraw and apologise without the preface please. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have withdrawn and apologised. How could one do it better? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Normally when members withdraw and apologise they just withdraw and apologise and make no comment before or after doing so. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you.
Jones Dail: General Debate 
Jones Dail: General Debate 
[Volume:649;Page:18023] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understood what the member said and I would expect that any member who used what might have been the four-letter alternative would be withdrawing and apologising. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. That is not acceptable in this House especially when it comes from a barrister who thought he would bring a higher standard to this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The member has taken offence. Would the member withdraw and apologise.
Hobbs Marian: General Debate 
Hobbs Marian: General Debate 
[Volume:649;Page:18023] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call the next speaker I want to make a comment. Earlier today the deputy leader of the National Party took a point of order about the use of pejorative language in this House. The previous speaker’s speech contained pejorative language not just in the last sentence and not just in the comments about the Labour Party but in the early ones about individuals in the House. I ask that member to reflect on that.
Hobbs Marian: General Debate 
Hobbs Marian: General Debate 
[Volume:649;Page:18020] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I call Tariana Turia.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:649;Page:18000] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I apologise for not raising this matter before question time which is when I should have done so. I seek leave for the time by which the Finance and Expenditure Committee must report the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill to be extended from Monday 1 September 2008 to Monday 8 September 2008. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action to be followed. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:649;Page:18000] 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I apologise for not raising this matter before question time which is when I should have done so. I seek leave for the time by which the Finance and Expenditure Committee must report the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill to be extended from Monday 1 September 2008 to Monday 8 September 2008. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action to be followed. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:649;Page:17996] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Madam Speaker— 
Hon Member 
: “Mr 20 Percent”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Ah that is where the member is headed and I can tell him that it does not feel good. My question— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members for sharing with us but would we please just get on with the question and the answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well I was new and inexperienced—what is Helen Clark’s excuse?
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:649;Page:17995] 
9.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What steps is the Government taking to accelerate the roll-out of high-speed broadband? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 This Government is committed to ensuring that all New Zealanders have access to faster cheaper broadband. Yesterday I announced details of the Broadband Investment Fund which will help facilitate high-speed broadband to businesses universities schools and hospitals; extend the reach of broadband into underserved regions particularly in the rural sector; and improve the resilience of New Zealand’s international connections. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has he received any other reports on ways to speed up investment in broadband? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes I have seen a report from Maurice Williamson MP that he was “going to have to be very careful about any detail” and when asked whether he intended it to compete with the incumbent Telecom he said: “Well no. The intention is to have a sort of utility just like your water your sewerage your gas.” From one of the National Party’s great proponents of privatisation this sudden urge to renationalise the telecommunications industry is somewhat curious.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:649;Page:17987] 
3.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What reports has she received on developments in Waikato roading? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I have seen a report in the  
Waikato Times  
noting that National’s deputy transport spokesperson David Bennett has backed Maurice Williamson’s exuberant statements about tolling. He went so far as to say tolling is a “big vote-winner”. Unfortunately for him 24 hours later there was yet another clarification. David Bennett has now been muzzled and as the  
Dominion Post  
would say he is choking on his own spurt of honesty. 
Sue Moroney 
: What reports has she seen about tolling the existing Auckland harbour bridge? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Well the stories go on and on. Today in the  
New Zealand Herald  
columnist Bryan Rudman talks about how North Shore MP Wayne Mapp has gone silent on his campaign for a toll on the existing harbour bridge. Not $3 not $5 but $6 a trip is what Mr Mapp has been proposing. That is $12 a day—at 5 days a week that is $60 a week. The tax cut is gone and so is some of the grocery money. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Minister of Transport outline Labour’s tolling policy which she has failed to do after repeated questions in this House; or is she as embarrassed about her tolling policy as she is about Labour’s exhaust tax whereby it plans to put a $10000 tax on the average family car as outlined in an official Government document that I showed the House yesterday? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: All of the rest of New Zealand has heard Labour’s tolling policy. Labour’s tolling policy is set out in the very legislation this Government passed in 2003. I wonder whether Mr English would now like to tell the House—and give the House a little bit of honesty—what he said about roads that do not have a free alternative. He said: “We wouldn’t toll roads unless there was a free alternative.” I draw his attention to the commentary of the Land Transport Management Bill where the National Party said the Minister has to ensure there is a feasible untolled alternative road available for road users. “We believe”—this is the National Party—“that this provision will make it most unlikely that toll roads will receive any investment in New Zealand.” So what Bill English said about there being another alternative is not true. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I may have misheard; I thought Mr English just said “That’s right.” Is that correct? 
Hon Bill English 
: That’s not a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. That is right.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Sub Judice Rule 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Sub Judice Rule 
[Volume:649;Page:17981] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I accept yesterday’s ruling but I am referring to Standing Order 111. You ruled that my question was outside Standing Orders because there is presumably “a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” Now I have had two independent experts go through all the cases relating to Mr Peters and I have also shown them my questions. They are completely flummoxed as to how in any way shape or form my questions could impinge on those cases other than my mentioning the name “Winston Peters”. I also tried to ring you yesterday to seek clarification about what questions I could or could not ask because I realised you were at a disadvantage yourself not knowing what the case was or where my questions breached the sub judice rule and I am wondering whether you have any way that you could [ 
Interruption 
]—the member can interrupt as much as he likes—enlighten me by giving me the parameters even by describing the case and the features of the case that is before the courts that my question impinged on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I did consider the matter very seriously and of course I took advice. I have given my ruling and I hope the member has the opportunity to be able to study it at his leisure.
Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Sub Judice Rule 
Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Sub Judice Rule 
[Volume:649;Page:17981] 
Points of Order 
Supplementary Questions—Sub Judice Rule 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I accept yesterday’s ruling but I am referring to Standing Order 111. You ruled that my question was outside Standing Orders because there is presumably “a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” Now I have had two independent experts go through all the cases relating to Mr Peters and I have also shown them my questions. They are completely flummoxed as to how in any way shape or form my questions could impinge on those cases other than my mentioning the name “Winston Peters”. I also tried to ring you yesterday to seek clarification about what questions I could or could not ask because I realised you were at a disadvantage yourself not knowing what the case was or where my questions breached the sub judice rule and I am wondering whether you have any way that you could [ 
Interruption 
]—the member can interrupt as much as he likes—enlighten me by giving me the parameters even by describing the case and the features of the case that is before the courts that my question impinged on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I did consider the matter very seriously and of course I took advice. I have given my ruling and I hope the member has the opportunity to be able to study it at his leisure.
King Annette: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
King Annette: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
[Volume:649;Page:17981] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 First what a disgrace it is that Mr Key would allow Gerry Brownlee to treat this issue in such a bombastic and blowhard way without once addressing the issue. What a disgrace. What sort of leadership is that from Mr Key that he would not treat an issue like this seriously? They said it was a diversion— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I presume the point of order is that nobody can hear. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: The Opposition is making it impossible. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I would remind members that the purpose of this place is that people are able to discuss their views and that people are able to hear those views. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have not even said a word yet and the bombastic and blowhard members on the front benches are already barracking. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will try once more so the Minister can give a reply and so all members in the Chamber have an opportunity to hear it. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: They called today’s statement a diversion. Well if anyone needs a diversion to stop the spotlight on them it is National members because they do not want the spotlight on their secret agenda and they do not want to have to keep apologising for their front bench. What we do not know is whether or not National supports the police—but I know they do not actually support the police. Every opportunity they get they attack the police. This was the first opportunity in living memory that the police have come to this House and asked for guidance before the police commissioner makes his final decision. I would have thought this House would have welcomed that. 
I tell the members of most of the minor parties that I thank them for their contribution. Whether they are in favour of it or opposed to it they put their cases clearly and they stated their positions. That is what the police commissioner wanted. Those members are a credit to their parties. I cannot say that to the National Party. 
The Government does not believe that the police should be routinely armed with firearms nor does the public of New Zealand. But we are concerned with the safety of police officers. We are concerned with the increased assaults on them particularly with weapons. We are concerned with the increased use of mind-altering drugs alcohol and so on. Our police face very dangerous situations every day. Our police have been trained to shoot with the most lethal weapon of all the gun to incapacitate and the outcome of that unfortunately in most cases is death. They do need another less lethal option that protects the police the public and individuals concerned. 
The Government is therefore supportive of Commissioner Broad’s in principle decision on Tasers and particularly the way in which their deployment is proposed with a high level of transparency and accountability.
Cullen Michael: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
Cullen Michael: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
[Volume:649;Page:17980] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
:  
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member may wish to use my ancestral tongue if he chooses to do so but I understand it. The reference to a pork pie is of course a reference to a lie. That is out of order in the House and he is the last person who would want to be raising that kind of point of order.
Anderton Jim: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
Anderton Jim: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
[Volume:649;Page:17980] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I just want to make two or three brief comments. I say to Mr Brownlee that one of the reasons why overwhelmingly people vote in general elections rather than in local body elections for example is that this Parliament has the power of life and death over the population. That is a very serious responsibility. When the police put to Parliament through their Minister the opportunity to participate in a decision about what may be a life-threatening enforcement I would expect anyone in this Parliament to take it seriously rather than take the buffoon-like approach we had from Mr Brownlee. 
Mr Hide in promoting the issues he thinks are important to Parliament and in telling us that we should not waste our time on important matters of policing and the weapons used by the police and that we should let Mr Hide take up the time that he has with this Parliament over and over again on issues that some of us may not be quite as interested in is simply being ludicrous. The issues of arming the police in whatever way they are armed go to the heart of the power of this Parliament. They are extraordinarily important and the decisions that we make around them are critical to the future well-being of many of the people who live in this country. 
The Progressive party will look at the tests and trials that the police have made we will look at the evidence and we will let the facts get in the way of any prejudice we might have.
Turner Judy: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
Turner Judy: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
[Volume:649;Page:17978] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future says that we support the police graduated response model. We have weighed up very seriously the inclusion within that model of the use of Tasers and we will support the police commissioner’s decision. We will support it because we believe that a series of procedures have been gone through including a trial and the seeking of further advice from other jurisdictions where Tasers are used. Also there is the inclusion of built-in recording mechanisms and cameras. These weapons will be available only to front-line staff who have been thoroughly trained and they will not be allowed to be carried on the hip but will be locked in vehicles and deployed only on approval by a supervisor or high-ranking officer. United Future suggests that it is the last area that will need the most ongoing monitoring in order to ensure that the deployment of Tasers is consistent with what is intended at this point and with what has been experienced in this country to date. 
We take note of the cautions spoken of by other parties. However United Future expresses our trust that the New Zealand Police will have adequate procedures in place to sensibly manage the use of Tasers and says we are happy to support the commissioner’s position.
Peters Winston: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
Peters Winston: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
[Volume:649;Page:17978] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 349. That Standing Order sets out the limitations in respect of who may speak on a ministerial statement. I ask with respect why that Standing Order is being overturned here today.
Cullen Michael: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
Cullen Michael: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
[Volume:649;Page:17978] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Standing Order 77(2) states: “A determination of the Business Committee applies notwithstanding any other Standing Order to the contrary.” On Tuesday 24 November 2005 the Business Committee determined that in fact leaders of parties with fewer than six members would be able to speak on ministerial statements.
Copeland Gordon: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
Copeland Gordon: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
[Volume:649;Page:17977] 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My reading of Standing Order 349 is that this debate is limited to leaders of parties with six or more members. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The convention has been that we normally allow members to speak if they represent a party. I call Judy Turner—I am sorry; I call the Hon Tariana Turia.
Wilson Margaret: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
Wilson Margaret: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
[Volume:649;Page:17977] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I call Judy Turner.