edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill — Third Reading 
Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10203] 
Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill be now read a third time 
.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10203] 
Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill — First Reading 
Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10164] 
Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10754] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.  
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Bennett David: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Bennett David: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10753] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I apologise.
Hughes Darren: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10753] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have just given a ruling that party votes are to be heard in silence. Mr Bennett who finds it hard to control himself at the best of times failed to listen to your advice and called out while one of the parties was casting a vote. It is a very simple rule. We conduct a vigorous debate then we conduct party votes in silence. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite right and I guess I probably should ask the member to leave the House. But I will give the member a chance seeing as it is nearly the end of members’ day. But I ask the member to apologise for his behaviour.
Hughes Darren: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10753] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Party votes are meant to be conducted in silence and the National Party is being very noisy. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I just say to members that it is very difficult to conduct a vote if people are making a noise and everybody knows that there should be silence during voting. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Smith Nick: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Nick: Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10753] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 During the course of Jacqui Dean’s speech the junior Government whip suggested—and I thought it was a very good suggestion—that we have a general election immediately. I seek the leave of the House that we have a general election as suggested by the junior Government whip. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Vote: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10730] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time.name changed to Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill
Hartley Ann: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hartley Ann: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10725] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I remind members not to bring the Speaker into the argument. If we had an honesty box with a dollar for every time the Speaker was brought into the argument it would get a lot more than the minimum wage per hour. 
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Vote: Business of the House 
Vote: Business of the House 
[Volume:640;Page:10705] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Abstentions 51 
New Zealand Labour 49; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Motion agreed to.
Tolley Anne: Business of the House 
Tolley Anne: Business of the House 
[Volume:640;Page:10704] 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 No I am moving a motion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You are moving a motion that members’ order of the day No. 1 be put aside and No. 2 take its place? 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: I move  
That members’ order of the day No. 1 be postponed until after consideration of members’ order of the day No. 2.
Barnett Tim: Business of the House 
Barnett Tim: Business of the House 
[Volume:640;Page:10704] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite the member to move a similar motion but to make it one that puts forward members’ order of the day No. 2 instead of members’ order of the day No. 3. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Are we having a motion put on the floor here or are we seeking leave? I was under the impression that we were to have a motion put on the floor. We are seeking leave are we?
Tolley Anne: Business of the House 
Tolley Anne: Business of the House 
[Volume:640;Page:10704] 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for members’ order of the day No. 3 to be taken ahead of members’ order of the day No. 1. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is seeking leave? Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Woolerton R Doug: Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Woolerton R Doug: Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:640;Page:10691] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave for the Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down for first reading as a members’ order of the day despite Standing Orders 276(1) and 277(1). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10684] 
8.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on the success of the BreastScreen Aotearoa programme? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have. This Labour-led Government almost doubled the number of women eligible for free breast-screening 3 years ago. In 2003 102000 women were screened. Last year 170000 women were screened. That is what we get when we invest in health rather than offering misleading promises of better health on the basis of a lower investment. 
Maryan Street 
: Why has BreastScreen Aotearoa resumed advertising? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It has done so because the capacity of facilities to undertake breast screening is growing even faster than the uptake of the programme which is itself rising by more than 20 percent a year. This Labour-led Government has opened new facilities up and down the country and has a total of 11 mobile units now purchased and operating. We want women to make use of those services because screening saves lives. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What is the coverage rate for women aged 45 to 49 years who participate in BreastScreen Aotearoa and how does that figure compare with the coverage rate for Maori women in the same age group? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have answers to neither question at my fingertips; I apologise to the member. I can however say the free coverage rate for that age group was 3 years ago absolutely zero. We have now fixed that.
Donnelly Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Donnelly Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10679] 
4.  
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Is there a need within the tertiary institutional framework for a category of a dual-purpose institution which would simultaneously have the characteristics of a polytechnic and a university and which focuses upon applied research? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 The issue is one worthy of serious consideration. I therefore look forward to the member’s bill proceeding to the select committee to enable that to happen. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom Leitch report on increasing national productivity found that the greatest productivity gains were to be made by increased participation in levels 4 to 7 certificate and diploma and trade and vocational programmes? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Leitch report did state that when considering how to increase productivity gains that level of certificate and other activity was most important. But the report itself did not refer to any structural change to the tertiary system and the UK does not have a university of technology category. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister agree that under current legislation if a non-university degree-conferring tertiary institution wishes to gain parity of esteem with universities for its graduate and post-graduate qualifications it is forced to reduce the proportion of sub-degree programmes which explains perhaps the unsatisfactory dearth of trade and vocational training courses from the North Shore to Wellsford? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that is a very good point. I think that what we should hope to achieve through the tertiary reform process is greater identification of the expertise and specific characteristics of institutions so that they can achieve excellence within those boundaries rather than our trying to pretend they are all like universities in order for them to be regarded as providing excellence. I think that is one of the things that has gone wrong with the tertiary education system in the last 20 years.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10677] 
2.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What is the Government doing to support the global competitiveness of the pipfruit industry? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Government is supporting a groundbreaking new pipfruit project spanning Hawke’s Bay Nelson and Otago—three key marginal seats I might note—aimed at growing export fruit that has no detectable pesticide residues. This is an initiative that supports sustainability and economic transformation. Consumers around the world are demanding that fruit has no chemical residues and New Zealand can take advantage of this by being a world leader in exporting sustainable produce. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What investment is the Government making in this initiative and what returns are expected? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Government will contribute $2 million towards this joint initiative with the pipfruit industry. The project is expected to halt the decline in the industry’s exports and lead to a $152 million increase to the value of exports after 5 years. 
Chris Tremain 
: Is this morning’s announcement really just false platitudes when the real issues facing apple growers are high interest rates a high exchange rate and lack of market access to Australia? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not sure whether the current representative of the Hawke’s Bay is saying that we should not put the support in and move the pipfruit industry into the modern world. But if the member had been properly representing his constituents on top of the issues he would have heard a very good speech from my colleague the Minister of Trade who addressed those very issues there this morning.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:640;Page:10675] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Justice and Electoral Committee to be authorised to meet in Australia and with committees of the Parliament of Victoria from 6-10 August 2007 and to adopt such practices and procedures as are considered suitable for the conduct of the business of the meetings. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:640;Page:10704] 
Business of the House 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for members’ order of the day No. 3 to be taken ahead of members’ order of the day No. 1. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is seeking leave? Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite the member to move a similar motion but to make it one that puts forward members’ order of the day No. 2 instead of members’ order of the day No. 3. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Are we having a motion put on the floor here or are we seeking leave? I was under the impression that we were to have a motion put on the floor. We are seeking leave are we? 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 No I am moving a motion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You are moving a motion that members’ order of the day No. 1 be put aside and No. 2 take its place? 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: I move  
That members’ order of the day No. 1 be postponed until after consideration of members’ order of the day No. 2. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Abstentions 51 
New Zealand Labour 49; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Motion agreed to.
Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:640;Page:10691] 
Points of Order 
Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave for the Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down for first reading as a members’ order of the day despite Standing Orders 276(1) and 277(1). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:640;Page:10675] 
Wednesday 25 July 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of Select Committees 
Meetings 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Justice and Electoral Committee to be authorised to meet in Australia and with committees of the Parliament of Victoria from 6-10 August 2007 and to adopt such practices and procedures as are considered suitable for the conduct of the business of the meetings. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8474] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 2 (Donnelly Woolerton); Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 5 (Brown Mark Paraone Peters Stewart); United Future 2 (Copeland Turner); ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8474] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 5 (Brown Mark Paraone Peters Stewart); United Future 2 (Copeland Turner); ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 2 (Donnelly Woolerton); Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1 
Amendment not agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8473] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is obviously a very important bill and for that reason—although I am not wanting to sound as if I am trifling with the Chair at all—we have a considerable concern about the ability of the senior Labour whip to cast a full vote on this particular bill. Information has come to us about the potential for the Labour Government to be well over its allowed number on leave. Of course we would accept the assurance of the whip but we are just a little concerned that that may be the case at the present time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that Mr Brownlee. The convention and the practice is that the word of the whip be accepted. If the vote was very very close then there would be areas one could go into. The vote is not close in those terms—it is 63 to 58. I intend to accept the word of the whip as to the number that he used. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 86 in the name of Chester Borrows to clause 3 be agreed to.
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8473] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 2 (Donnelly Woolerton); Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 5 (Brown Mark Paraone Peters Stewart); United Future 2 (Copeland Turner); ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field 
Motion agreed to.
Simich Clem: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8473] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I have yet to consider what was put here. I accept the motion in the way it was put albeit it was slightly off the actual wording that is specified. But the wording was sufficient for me to understand the motion and I accept it. Also we have had 2 hours 45 minutes on this tiny clause. I want to be very fair on this. We have had over 30 contributors and the essence of the bill is in the next clause. It is my judgment that members really want to get to that clause. I will accept the motion from Jill Pettis. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With due respect my understanding is that the wording used in the motion has to be accurate to the letter. If you Mr Chairman start to change that then that will endanger how Chairpersons and Speakers have treated the issue of a closure motion. I raise real concerns in regard to that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not think that point needs to delay us. I have accepted the wording as put by Jill Pettis. I am quite comfortable with it and I intend to put that motion.
Brownlee Gerry: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8473] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We had a motion from Mrs Pettis that was inappropriately worded according to the Standing Orders. In any event I seek the call.
Pettis Jill: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8473] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chairman I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Barnett Tim: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8472] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Donnelly Brian: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8470] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As discussed earlier I was quoted by Tau Henare. By way of explanation I say that he quoted only half of what I said and therefore gave quite an inaccurate rendition of what I said. What I actually said was that our murder laws do not get rid of murders and I asked therefore whether we should get rid of our murder laws. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you Mr Donnelly.
Borrows Chester: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8440] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you can just confirm for those of us gathered here the advice given to this Parliament by your colleague Ann Hartley when we commenced debate on the Committee stage that clauses 3 and 4 would have wide-ranging debates and that members would be given leniency to be able to debate them widely. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I tell the member that clause 3 is the purpose clause and members may debate right over it—it is a very wide clause. So the member is perfectly correct.
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8440] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2A be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 2 (Donnelly Woolerton); Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 5 (Brown Mark Paraone Peters Stewart); United Future 2 (Copeland Turner); ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field 
Clause 2A agreed to.
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8440] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 2 (Donnelly Woolerton); Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 5 (Brown Mark Paraone Peters Stewart); United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field 
Motion agreed to.
Guy Nathan: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8437] 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. National has a lot of speakers wishing to take a call on this clause. The amendment of the Crimes Act 1961 is extremely important to us and I would like you to consider ruling accordingly and hearing the rest of our speakers please. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Speakers’ ruling 60/7 which states that the chairperson is the sole judge as to whether a closure is accepted. I also refer the member to Standing Orders 138 and 137(3). I am not going to accept the closure yet; I am going to accept the next speaker the honourable member Rodney Hide.
Fenton Darien: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8437] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pettis Jill: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8436] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bradford Sue: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8434] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call to make a direct response to Mr Copeland. Of course as far as I know there has never been a conviction or a prosecution of someone once lightly smacking a child. That is simply because we have the defence of reasonable force under section 59 of the Crimes Act which is for the purpose of correction. It is this section this bill seeks to repeal. The problem is that at the moment we have cases where people who severely beat their children escape conviction in court under section 59 of the Crimes Act. The whole point is that this bill is not an anti-smacking bill; it is an anti-beating bill. Under section 194 of the Crimes Act an assault on children under 14 is against the law. The situation in this country is that we have this defence of reasonable force which allows people to get away with quite seriously assaulting their children. Thank you.
Copeland Gordon: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8434] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 As you have correctly pointed out Mr Chairman clause 2A of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill states that the bill amends the Crimes Act 1961. Therefore I think it is highly relevant to this debate to determine what the Crimes Act 1961 actually states in relation to smacking a child. If we are to amend the Act then by definition we are changing what is currently in it to something else. I particularly want to challenge the remarks made by the member Russell Fairbrother by the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark and by the sponsor of the bill Sue Bradford that smacking has always been illegal in New Zealand. To me those comments display a complete ignorance of what the Crimes Act at present states in relation to smacking. What it states is that the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. Let us take a situation of a child receiving a light smack—one light smack with the hand. Is that a crime in New Zealand at the moment? 
Hon Members 
: Yes it is! 
GORDON COPELAND 
: No it is not. I will go to the Crimes Act which is what we are debating. The Act defines the word “justified” as follows: “ ‘Justified’ in relation to any person means not guilty of an offence”—not guilty of an offence—“and not liable to any civil proceeding:” if the force used is reasonable. I want to ask a question of those who have just barracked in a prepared sort of way that one smack by the hand is already illegal. Since the Crimes Act 1961 was brought into being from that day to this—[ 
Interruption 
] My point is relevant to the amendment to the Crimes Act 1961 Mr Chairman. I am within the Standing Orders on this I am absolutely sure. I want to ask those members how many parents who have smacked their child once have been prosecuted and found guilty in the courts of New Zealand. I will tell them the answer: not one single person. On that note I rest my case and challenge the member in the chair Sue Bradford to tell me otherwise. Can she tell me where and when the parent of any child who has been smacked like that has been found guilty of a crime. The member is saying that smacking at the moment is a crime; I am saying very definitely that it is not a crime.
Robertson H V Ross: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8434] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member I just say that I have been fairly tolerant with speakers. We are actually debating clause 2A. I have given members some latitude on that and members’ previous speeches have been pretty wide ranging. But I ask members if they can please to try to debate what the clause states. I know it is not an easy clause; I understand that. The real issues of the bill are in clauses 3 and thereon in. But clause 2A is a really narrow one. I suggest that members ask themselves for instance whether the bill should amend the Crimes Act or whether this is the right bill to do that with. They really need to relate their speech to what is in the clause. I know that is not easy but the real meat is in other clauses.
Vote: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8432] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.
Guy Nathan: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Guy Nathan: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8431] 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think that Mr Steve Maharey will take his right of reply so I seek leave for our speaker to take a short call please. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Choudhary Ashraf: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8431] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
Wa’alaikum salaam. I rise to support the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. I have had the privilege of living in Palmerston North for 30-odd years. In fact among all the members here in Parliament I have lived closest to the land which is on the corner of Fitzherbert Avenue and Park Road. That bowling club area is very well known to me because I travelled by that place almost every day when taking my children to school and travelling to the city from my house. 
I support this bill which is supported by the local member and also by Simon Power who lives in Palmerston North City. I concur with both of them. They have explained the history behind this bill and the need for the city council to be able to sell this land to the right group of people if it has to. I heard what the Maori Party member mentioned. I am quite clear that there will be an opportunity for Rangitane for whom I have a lot of respect—I worked with them for a number of years—along with other groups to make a submission to the select committee and have the opportunity to be heard. In the meantime I am delighted to support this bill because it gives flexibility to the Palmerston North City Council to determine the future of this land and I am sure it will make good use of it.
Woolerton R Doug: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8427] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will be supporting the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee and we look forward to the select committee answering a few concerns that we have. I am sure it will not be a problem for the committee to do that. 
We will want to know where the land came from prior to 1922 and whether the Treaty settlement process and those sorts of things have been followed correctly. Those are the sorts of questions we will be asking in the select committee and I am sure the answers will be forthcoming without any worries whatsoever. I am delighted to hear that the council can measure a 0.2 percent reduction in rates. Computers must be a wonderful thing because I am sure prior to that nobody would have sat down all day and measured that percentage. But I am pleased to hear that if the Hon Steve Maharey can bring back a rates reduction to the people of Palmerston North his seat will be secure for many years to come. 
I will not take any more time than that. I just want to signal that New Zealand First will support the bill to the select committee and we look forward to the answers on a couple of small issues. Thank you.
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
[Volume:638;Page:8418] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Speakers’ rulings are relatively consistent over a long period of time. It is a matter of whether the member shifts for the purpose of interjecting. Generally the time that someone has spent in a seat is taken into account. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: So we are allowed to do it? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: As I said the member needs to refer to several Speakers’ rulings on that—for example Speakers’ ruling 58/3.
Henare Tau: General Debate 
Henare Tau: General Debate 
[Volume:638;Page:8418] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Throughout that speech by my colleague Mr Shane Jones continually led a barrage of interjections. Although we do not mind interjections we do mind the member coming from way back in the back row where he usually sits to the front bench in order to make those interjections. I think that it states in the Standing Orders that one should not move to a place of advantage in order to interject. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The Standing Orders say several things. One of the considerations is that the member had been sitting there for a while. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I am sorry but I did not actually hear what you said. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member had been sitting in that seat for a while. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: So you are saying— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No no. The member should go and read his  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 on this matter. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As a point of clarification are you saying a member can move to a new seat stay there for some time and then it is OK to barrack from that seat?
Wong Pansy: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Wong Pansy: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:638;Page:8409] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your help with regard to outstanding answers to my written questions Nos 2129 to 2132 to the Minister of— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Would the member please be seated. There is an accepted procedure that I follow rigorously. Members notify me; they do not raise these matters in the House. I will make sure that the issue is attended to in good time.
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:638;Page:8409] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your help with regard to outstanding answers to my written questions Nos 2129 to 2132 to the Minister of— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Would the member please be seated. There is an accepted procedure that I follow rigorously. Members notify me; they do not raise these matters in the House. I will make sure that the issue is attended to in good time.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:638;Page:8406] 
11.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Has she received any reports of deals being structured as schemes of arrangement and amalgamations in order to avoid the Takeovers Code; if so what steps is she taking to address this issue? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The outgoing chair John King and the new chair David Jones have renewed the Takeovers Panel’s calls for these issues to be addressed. When the earlier call was made public last year an amendment to the Securities Legislation Bill was proposed on the basis that we should not wait for another piece of legislation. Then the Government proposed an out-of-scope amendment to the Business Law Reform Bill to address an aspect of its concerns. The first was proposed by the National Party and the second was opposed by the National Party. I have now referred the matter back to the Takeovers Panel. I am confident it will report a solution that will be acceptable to everyone. 
Maryan 
 Street 
: Why has the matter been referred back to the Takeovers Panel when it has already reported once on this matter? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Since the time of the Takeovers Panel’s report the Government has announced a new regulatory impact analysis framework to take effect from 1 April 2007. I have asked the Takeovers Panel to include a regulatory impact statement with its report. This is the first time that this measure has been adopted. This will strengthen the process and is consistent with this Government’s approach to ensuring quality regulation. The Takeovers Panel has welcomed the reference and has issued a statement today saying it will commence the work immediately and in so doing will consult further with the commercial community. 
Simon Power 
: What does the Minister say to current minority shareholders who while she orders another review potentially have to bear the consequences of a loophole that Pansy Wong suggested should be closed in the first place through an amendment during the Committee stage of the Securities Legislation Bill 7 months ago? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I would ask them why the National Party had not supported the amendment to the Business Law Reform Bill.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:638;Page:8404] 
9.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What changes that will benefit New Zealand families come into force on 1 April this year? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House that a number of significant changes take place from 1 April in addition to the increases already announced to superannuation the minimum wage and annual leave entitlements. As endorsed by the House yesterday the Working for Families tax credits will increase by $10 per week per child on 1 April. Unemployment sickness invalids widows and domestic purposes benefit rates will all increase in line with the increase in the Consumers Price Index on 1 April. Additionally on 1 April there will be an increase of $10 per week per child in the foster care allowance and a $20 per week per child increase in the orphans and the unsupported child’s benefit rates. Those moves will ensure that all families in New Zealand will share the benefits of a growing economy. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Has the Minister seen any reports that not all families should share in the wealth of a growing economy? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I heard an extraordinary report from the House yesterday that an MP had described targeted tax credits as a joke. I doubt whether William and Josephine from Kaitaia who actually live in that member’s electorate would think that receiving more than $300 per week in Working for Families tax credits is a joke. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: How much? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: More than $300 per week. But I am sure they would have regarded the $10 per week that was being offered by National at the last election as a complete farce.
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:638;Page:8401] 
7.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How much extra per week will people on New Zealand superannuation receive as a result of the annual adjustment coming into effect on 1 April this year? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Superannuation and veterans pension rates are being set at 66 percent of the net average weekly wage as at 1 April 2007 in line with the Government’s agreement with New Zealand First. From 1 April the rates for New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension will be increased by 5 percent. If the rates had risen by the consumer price index adjustment alone they would have risen by 2.63 percent. The increase for a married couple will be $20.24 per week net or $1052.48 per year. The increase for a single person living alone will be $13.16 per week or $684 per year. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Can the Minister advise the House of any other policies aimed at improving the lives of our seniors? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am aware that good progress is being made on the SuperGold card and that New Zealand First is working with the Government to progress the matter of portability of overseas pensions and funding within the elder-care sector.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:638;Page:8391] 
1. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What changes will be made to the minimum wage on 1 April this year? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to announce to the House that as of 1 April the adult minimum wage will have its biggest increase since 1999 moving from $10.25 to $11.25 per hour. The youth rate will increase from $8.20 to $9 per hour. This change will effectively give 119100 workers a pay rise next Sunday. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on changes to the minimum wage? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Actually I have. I have seen a report that notes that the Labour-led Government has raised the minimum wage each and every year it has been in office increasing it from $7 an hour in 1999 to $11.25 an hour this year—a total rise of $4.25 an hour or 61 percent. That result stands in stark contrast to that of the last National Government which over 9 years raised the minimum wage by less than $1. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister share the New Zealand First view that economically the country is well on track to enable the Government to give assurances that the minimum wage will be increased to $12 per hour within the term of this Parliament as is stipulated in the confidence and supply agreement? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Labour-Progressive Government has a confidence and supply agreement and an arrangement with both New Zealand First and the Green Party to have the adult minimum wage at $12 an hour by the end of this term if economic conditions permit. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on other changes to the minimum wage? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have. I have a report that states: “We don’t believe it’s necessary to move the minimum wage up. That wasn’t what we did during the ’90s.” That report is from the deposed National Party spokesperson on industrial relations Wayne Mapp. But I note that the leader of the National Party has flip-flopped on that position and said he is not personally opposed to adjusting the minimum wage. Although I welcome with some healthy scepticism John Key’s mimicking of Labour’s fair approach to the minimum wage judging by National’s abysmal record of adjusting the wage— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ministers can respond to reports but not comment on the policies.
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex 
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:638;Page:8391] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Following on from that I have a couple of other matters to raise. I understand from your press release that you will also be writing to the Chinese Embassy to explain the protocols surrounding the conduct of this House and free speech or something along those lines. Could you clarify that? Secondly one issue of concern that has come out of looking at the tape of the incident on Monday is a question mark over who gives accreditation to press gallery journalists—whether the police have the powers to give accreditation and take it away as the police officer seemed to indicate or whether that is the function of the Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In addressing the member’s points I shall be contacting the Chinese Ambassador merely to inform him of the process and the rules. And of course it is not the police who give accreditation to the press gallery; it is the Speaker.
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex 
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:638;Page:8391] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I note from a media report last night that you indicated you had some sympathy for Mr Nick Wang and the concerns he had over his treatment here on Monday and that you were going to meet the Commissioner of Police to discuss protocols governing such situations. I wonder whether you could advise the House firstly whether such a meeting has taken place and if so what was the outcome; and secondly when such a meeting does take place whether you will indicate to the House what has transpired so that we can all know what the rules are for the future. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I am writing to the Commissioner of Police to arrange a meeting and of course the House will be kept fully informed.