edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
King Annette: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3482. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It appears in your ruling that you have ruled as if it was not a conscience vote—as if it was just ordinary first reading speeches.
McClay Todd: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
McClay Todd: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3479. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to rise to speak on the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill in the name of Jacqui Dean the hard-working member of Parliament for the Waitaki electorate. I congratulate Ms Dean on working hard for her constituents and bringing this bill to the House because although there are differences of opinion on both sides of this Chamber—and I understand and respect that—Ms Dean works hard for her constituents she listens to them as a local MP and she is here today with this legislation at their request. Therefore it is important that we note that. 
Her bill is to some degree similar to one I had in the House some time ago. It will offer some choice to local people: whether they want to work or not will be their choice whether they want to open their shops or not will be their choice and if they choose not to equally it will be their choice. I believe that this issue should be one of choice. I do also note that for many parts of the country there are some people who may just want to open their shops. We can have a debate about whether that is the appropriate thing to do on these days but in so far as Wanaka is concerned and certainly Rotorua—my home town where we have thriving busy tourist destinations and these Easter weekends are extremely busy—shopkeepers and others tell us that they wish they had this choice. 
So I say to Ms Dean if looks alone would have delivered this we would be shopping in Wanaka this year. Sadly it will take a vote of the House. But I do ask members to consider that this is a direct request of the people who live every day in Wanaka that this House give them the chance to consider this issue for themselves. I ask members to give Ms Dean and the people of Wanaka the opportunity to make their case to a select committee. Thank you.
Hipkins Chris: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3482. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I checked this out with the Clerk at the Table as this debate began because I am aware that this matter has traditionally been a conscience vote and members have indicated that it would be a conscience vote. The Clerk advised me that the speaking list for a conscience vote is a guide only and in fact it is up to the Speaker to determine when the debate is done on a conscience vote. Although I understand you would use that as a guide you are not bound by it in the way that you would be for a regular set-piece debate.
Tisch Lindsay: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3482. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No. When we look at the list the Greens get one call and that call was taken by David Clendon at No. 5 so— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Hang on I am just dealing with this here. This is a first reading of a bill by a National member and when we look at the schedule here the Green Party had a call. It has one call in this debate and that was taken by David Clendon so unfortunately the member—because the debate is now finished. We have had all the calls now and we just have the right of reply.
Henare Tau: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Henare Tau: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3470. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been a longstanding issue of order in the House about the mentioning of either members or parties and whether they are here or whether they are not. We are not allowed to do it. That member over there just said that a particular party was not here.
Vote: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3470. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the  
Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill 
 be now read a first time. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
King Annette: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3470. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 The member has stated an interjection that was said to another member in the House and claimed that a member was claiming that another member was not in the House. If you were to take every interjection or comment that was made then I think you would find it very difficult to maintain order in this House. I also find that member being a tell-tale tit at this stage—
Horan Brendan: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Horan Brendan: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3470. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I beg your indulgence for a new member. Can you just enlighten me please—when it is 60 all how is it lost?
Robertson H V Ross: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3468. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just advise members that members may use such instruments during the course of a debate when they are in the House but when members are not debating they must be removed from the top of the bench and placed on the desk underneath.
Ross Jami-Lee: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ross Jami-Lee: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3467. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I stand to speak in opposition to the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill. I understand that the member Phil Twyford does feel strongly about this issue but National stands in opposition to this bill because we do not believe in boxing at shadows. We do not believe in passing legislation that would put us in the league of a number of countries such as Belgium. What are the other countries? That is the only country that has banned depleted uranium. So although we like to be world leaders around the world we do not necessarily have to be the ones who go off banning things unnecessarily when to date no adverse health effects have been identified by New Zealand Defence Force personnel and no conclusive evidence that depleted uranium poses a significant health or environmental threat has been found either. 
The people of Te Atatu made a bold decision last year. They elected Phil Stoner Twyford to Parliament to be their representative to champion their most significant issues and to stand up for them on the big issues of the day. What have we got here today? A bill about banning depleted uranium. This is a bit of a non-event. This is boxing at shadows. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: This is a huge issue in my electorate—a huge issue! 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: This is not a huge issue in my electorate Mr Williamson. I can assure the House that I have thoroughly asked my constituents at every single constituent meeting—no no I am just joking here. This is not an issue that I think weighs heavily on the hearts of New Zealanders. 
We know from the report that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee did most recently that this is not an issue that is pressing for the country to deal with. I just want to finish off by quoting a paragraph from the select committee report. It said: “Agencies such as the United Nations Environment Programme the International Committee of the Red Cross the World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency have conducted research into the effect of depleted uranium on the human population and generally conclude that the risk of post-conflict contamination is statistically insignificant.” I suggest that this bill is also insignificant and is not worthy of being passed by the House.
Woodhouse Michael: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3469. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I have listened very carefully to the reasons my colleagues have articulated as to why they cannot support the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill. I join with them in opposing the bill.
Hayes John: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hayes John: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3461. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is interesting how the worm turns. The petition that led to this bill in fact came to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in 2005 and it was promoted by one Robert Ritchie. The then Government—who was the Government in 2005? It was Labour—it was a Labour Government. It let it sit on the Table because it did not want to address it until this Government the National-led Government came into office in 2008. At that point we had the appendages to address the issue. 
I draw on the report of the select committee which happened to be under my chairmanship. The committee recommended that staff who had been exposed to battle situations and particularly air force personnel who were involved with our Skyhawks be constantly monitored and they are continuing to be constantly monitored. This is because the Skyhawks had depleted uranium on their ailerons. Why? It is not because they are strong but because they are damned heavy. The committee recommended that yes we keep monitoring but we take no action without clear scientific evidence. I am interested that Mr Twyford pulled up comments from the then Chief of Defence Force General Mateparae because I very clearly remember asking Jerry Mateparae the then Chief of Defence Force “Are you concerned about exposing your troops to situations where there is depleted uranium?”. Check the record: he gave an unequivocal answer of no; he had no concerns about that. 
This bill if it were implemented would make our soldiers criminals if they got into the wrong armoured personnel carrier or Humvee on a joint operation. It would make our people criminals for calling in air support or artillery support from any ally and failing to check what ammunition they were going to use. It would make criminals of our people planning UN peacekeeping operations who authorised the deployment of foreign nation vehicles with the wrong kinds of armour plating. New Zealand supported a UN General Assembly resolution last year that encourages member States to facilitate and monitor studies and research on depleted uranium by relevant international organisations. Until there is evidence—hard factual evidence—National will not support this bill. Thank you.
Genter Julie Anne: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Genter Julie Anne: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3459. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 I have listened with great interest to the debate. I would like to thank all members here for the very respectful and thoughtful nature of the debate and for their support at the first reading of the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. We are of course well aware of the work that has already gone into the question of pecuniary interests by the Law Commission some of which was in response to Dr Graham’s member’s bill. I am grateful that the commission should take this issue with the seriousness that it warrants and devote priority to the matter. 
We acknowledge the intent of the Government explained by the Attorney-General and also members here in the House today that the select committee consider approaching the bill within the broader context of the reform of the Judicature Act. We assure all members that we will work in a positive spirit with the Government and other members of the Justice and Electoral Committee to advance the general aims of the bill and the judicial reform package that the Government is intending to bring in. We look forward to working with it to those ends. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Robertson H V Ross: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3465. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the honourable member a reminder about the use of electronic devices in the Chamber. Can I advise members that the rules relating to the use of electronic devices in the Chamber have been relaxed in recent years. Their use is permitted but not so as to disrupt the business of the House and they must be switched to silent mode when in the Chamber. Any member using electronic devices for notes from which to refresh their memories when speaking in debate is fine. At these times they may be placed on the top surface of a member’s desk. At all other times they should be placed on the drop-down work surface so that they in no way obstruct or interfere with the Speaker’s view of the House or any of its members.
Lotu-Iiga Sam: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lotu-Iiga Sam: Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3465. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a short call on the first reading of the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill. Let me state up front that this is the first time I have spoken on a bill in this House where I have opposed a bill. I oppose this bill because it is wrong in its formation and it is not based on scientific evidence—the evidence-based approach that this Government takes. 
What the bill does is seek to ban the use of depleted uranium ammunitions and armour until research proves that it does not have an adverse effect on health. We on this side support continued monitoring and research into the effects of depleted uranium but we will not take further action without clear scientific evidence. This stance is supported as my honourable colleague the Hon Tau Henare has said by recommendations of the 2001 report by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the 2010 submission to the United Nations by the International Atomic Energy Agency. 
A number of evaluations of the environmental and health impact of depleted uranium munitions have been performed. Together with the United Nations and several international appraisals the International Atomic Energy Agency and the WHO have come to the conclusion that “the results of these assessments indicated that the existence of depleted uranium residues dispersed in the environment does not”—does not—“pose a radiological hazard to the population of the affected regions.” 
We oppose this bill. It is another clear example that the Labour Opposition is legislating and creating problems rather than legislating to fix problems as this National Government does. I oppose this bill.
Tisch Lindsay: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 1 to Minister 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 1 to Minister 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3453. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you.
Bennett Paula: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 1 to Minister 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett Paula: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 1 to Minister 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3453. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I seek leave for a personal explanation to correct an answer given earlier today 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for a personal explanation under Standing Order 354. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I correct an answer and the corrected answer should be: at the time of answering the question I had not been briefed as to whether or not the Associate Minister had any information regarding the evidence of fraud.
Yang Jian: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Yang Jian: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3448. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the third reading of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. Before I begin I would like to acknowledge the good work of the Hon Amy Adams Michael Woodhouse and members of the Commerce Committee for their recommendations. 
The purpose of the bill is to ensure transparency and disclosure to the public so that they can make fair and informed decisions when donating money to registered charities. Currently agencies collecting for charities may use names similar to the charity they are collecting for and hence the public believe that they are actually donating money to the end charity. The problem has been that many third parties collecting for charities fail to fully disclose to the potential givers that a percentage of their donation will be taken to cover costs—sometimes very exorbitant costs. 
This bill aims to control third-party businesses that collect on behalf of charities and not the charities themselves or their volunteers. As there are currently no rules on what has to be disclosed the aim of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill is to remedy that anomaly. There have been media reports in the past that have highlighted that sometimes just 2.5 percent of money given has ended up in the hands of the charity. This is scandalous and is harmful to consumer confidence. 
This bill aims to protect charities and consumers. It will help restore faith in charities which rely heavily on the kind generosity of New Zealanders and ensure that their good work continues and that consumer rights are fully protected. The Charities Commission reports that $1 billion was given to the 25000 registered New Zealand charities in 2012. It is this type of legislation that ensures that loopholes are closed so that the utmost transparency and accountability are maintained when it comes to registered charities. The last thing we want and which would be detrimental to the good work of charities is putting off potential donors because they feel that their hard-earned cash will not get to those it was intended for. Although the change will not have much impact on charities themselves it will however result in a more streamlined service but still offer charities the information and support they need. 
The Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill is a good piece of legislation that will increase transparency and public accountability and restore public faith to ensure that charities continue their good work as they make a valuable contribution to society. I commend it to the House. Thank you. 
Bill read a third time.
Young Jonathan: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Young Jonathan: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3437. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand in support of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill in its third reading. This bill was originally brought to the House by the Hon Amy Adams of Selwyn in response to concerns that third-party businesses that are collecting on behalf of charities were taking proportions of the donations probably far in excess of what donors were aware of. What this bill aims to do is to bring some transparency and accountability regarding that. 
The bill has been through the select committee process. It has been through a number of readings and we have had a number of submitters who have come and put their point of view across. We know that there is some degree of complexity around this because there are organisations that do in the first year of receiving receipts have a large proportion of their donations going to those third-party organisations that are in fact bona fide organisations supporting very well-intentioned charities. There has been some concern that the extent of this bill would detract from those organisations’ funding processes. Because of that there is a regulation-making power in the bill that is going to enable the complexities of those sorts of situations to be rectified. That is to be put in place so the bill does not act in detriment to the causes in which those charities are working but at the same time it is also going to enable transparency and accountability. 
I am happy now just to conclude my speech. Thank you very much. I do support this bill and the good work of the Minister the member Amy Adams from Selwyn. Thank you.
Peters Winston: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3430. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an email to the Prime Minister dated 10 February 2012 alerting him to this issue which the Minister for Social Development today denied any knowledge of. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Can the matter be clarified? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did the members not understand? If the right honourable gentleman could please just describe the document again. I apologise to him. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: This is the email I referred to in my speech as being an email alerting the Prime Minister to what was going on in respect of that Maori women’s refuge in Palmerston North. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 





Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3421. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I apologise I should have tabled this earlier. I seek leave to table a letter from front-line biosecurity staff claiming among other things a shortage of 30 people at the Auckland International Airport. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 







Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3421. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What involvement meetings or contact did his predecessor have with Infratil NZ Bus or Snapper Services regarding Auckland’s integrated ticketing system and what involvement did the Government have in the decision to include Snapper in the project? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am advised that my predecessor did not have any meetings contacts or involvement with Infratil NZ Bus or Snapper specifically on Auckland’s integrated ticketing projects. He did meet with these organisations. On 12 December 2008 he met with Infratil. On 19 February 2009 he met with NZ Bus regarding the Public Transport Management Act. On 18 June 2009 he met with NZ Bus at the launch of the Wellington flyer service; on 3 March 2010 he met with Lloyd Morrison. And on 24 June 2011 he met with NZ Bus at the launch of its fleet replacement programme. It is possible that integrated ticketing was raised at these events. Ministers though had no involvement in the decision to include Snapper in the Auckland integrated fares scheme. 
Phil Twyford 
: Did his predecessor discuss in any of those meetings with NZ Bus Infratil or Snapper the proposal for the Snapper card to be rolled out in Auckland in advance of the integrated ticketing system? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The only involvement that Ministers have had in this is to insist to the New Zealand Transport Agency that the systems it puts in place are flexible. Ministers have had no involvement in the decision to include Snapper in the integrated system. 
Phil Twyford 
: What actions did his predecessor take that led him to say to reporters yesterday that the Government was only trying to be fair to Infratil and Snapper in allowing the Snapper card to be rolled out in advance of the integrated ticketing system? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: In order to answer that I think it only fair that I state what the question was. The question related to why the Government has not done something about this and I simply said that given the negotiations that have occurred between Auckland Transport the New Zealand Transport Agency and Snapper with the date for the go button on the integrated ticketing system having been extended right out to now 30 November 2012 it was in fact in order that they have more time to integrate their system with the Thales system which will be the base of the operation. 
Phil Twyford 
: Did his predecessor intervene on behalf of Infratil to pressure the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and subsequently Auckland Transport and the Land Transport New Zealand boards to allow the Snapper card to be rolled out in advance of the integrated ticketing system? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No that is not my understanding. The member may want to take that up with Auckland Transport.
Ross Jami-Lee: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ross Jami-Lee: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3422. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What recent reports has she received regarding the success of 90-day trials? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to inform the House that a new Department of Labour report shows that 60 percent of employers have used 90-day trials to take a chance and hire new staff in what is a tight labour market. The report also shows that 40 percent of employers who hired someone on a trial period would not have taken that person on without it. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: What other information does she have on the considerable benefits of extending 90-day trials to all workers last year? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: More good news. The report also notes that the vast majority of employers—80 percent—retained their staff once the trial period was over. Given that previous research by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research has told us that 90-day trials led to 13000 new jobs in small and medium sized businesses it is safe to say that many more jobs have been created since the trials were extended to all businesses last year. I am also pleased to report the findings that 90-day trials have been especially beneficial for young people and the long-term unemployed and it is clear that trial periods are of great benefit to both employers and employees.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3418. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Just in relation to I think question No. 2 I was asked a question and I am just looking to take this opportunity to seek leave to table the following information. New Zealand Government bond rates reached over 20 percent in May June and August of 1985— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat right away. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. Both sides’ front-benchers will cease this interjection when I am on my feet. The right honourable Prime Minister knows that the practice is to establish the document. The member is seeking leave to table a document I take it and the Standing Orders are very particular. If a member is granted leave to table a document it must be tabled. Before I put leave to the House we need to know the source of the document the right honourable Prime Minister is seeking to table. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The data for all of it including the 22 percent—my favourite—is from the Reserve Bank. I am looking to seek leave to table the document and not the iPad though because I need that back. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think the House is yet clear that the document is a Reserve Bank document. It is a Reserve Bank document. If it is just a website we do not seek leave to table things from websites.
Ngaro Alfred: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ngaro Alfred: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3414. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What commitments has the Government made to reduce the number of child assaults in New Zealand? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Since 2004 the number of child assaults substantiated physical abuse has risen from 1820 to 3086 in 2011. Assaults against children are simply unacceptable. Under our Better Public Services targets we have committed to not only stopping the continued growth in child assaults but also reducing the current number by 5 percent. This is an ambitious target reducing this number to below 3000 when it is projected to reach 4000 but one we simply must achieve. 
Alfred Ngaro 
: Given that this target is ambitious what actions will the Government take to achieve this? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: These Better Public Services targets set clear focused goals ensuring a whole-of-Government response with agencies really working together. I think that is a big part of the change that we are seeing. We are already seeing a difference made in for example having more social workers in schools as well as workshops teaching health and education professionals to better detect physical abuse and a multi-agency response to those children who are leaving hospitals. But there is no doubt about it that we have a lot of work to do. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Will she develop a target specifically on reducing child poverty including for those in the homes of the working poor; if not why not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I do not think that living in poverty is an excuse to assault your child. Although we are working on bringing the number of child assaults down I think to say that fixing child poverty would fix child assaults is simply wrong. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I made sure that my question was very straight and quite tightly confined. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A point of order is being raised. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I did not make any of the implications that the Minister has assumed. I simply asked whether she was working to develop a target on reducing child poverty. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Because the main question is quite specific on the commitments this Government has made to reduce the number of child assaults I linked it to that main question on child assaults and answered appropriately. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! In fairness that was not an unreasonable conclusion for the Minister to come to because the primary question is very much about the Government’s commitment to reduce the number of child assaults. For the Minister to interpret the member’s question in relation to child assaults therefore was not unreasonable. I do not think I can ask the Minister to—because she clearly in answering indicated that the Government would not be having targets around reducing child poverty. So the answer seemed reasonable to me.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3415. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not going to dispute the fact that this question has been transferred and the fact there are some good Speakers’ rulings including 152/1 on that subject. But I would like to refer you to Speaker’s ruling 152/5 as to the question of textual changes. The wording that was used from here around the wage gap with Australia being the fundamental purpose of “his” Government relates to a comment from the Prime Minister. The question I have is whether “his” Government can then be part of the question to the Minister of Finance the Minister of Broadcasting or any of the other junior Ministers. I know there is implicit criticism of you here because it is your office that is responsible for it but should it have been “the Prime Minister’s” Government?
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3409. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I appreciate the right honourable gentleman’s point but I think that the House must accept that there is a fundamental principle in this House that a member’s word is accepted. Where whips cast a certain number of votes the House must accept that or the whole basis of the operation of the House starts to fall to bits. The right honourable gentleman has been around this place as long as I have and will remember the way things used to work under previous rules when members used to have to cast their own votes and often when the House was sitting in urgency the attendance of members would be tested fairly early in the morning to make sure all members were here. But the rules are different now and we must accept the word of members and the votes being cast by party whips or the whole operation of this House is brought into question and that would be unacceptable. I think the Speaker’s ruling is very clear on the matter and I do not wish to take the matter any further now.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3409. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been pointed out to me that in making my point of order I have almost certainly reflected badly on the National Party whips. I did not at all intend to do that. I believe that they have always acted with integrity.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3408. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I do not want this point of order to go down this track at all. I think the innuendo being cast now is most unfortunate. I think the point of order was raised in good faith. Votes cannot be closer than that but the matter has arisen before and the Speaker has previously ruled very clearly. As I read just a moment ago to the House Speaker’s ruling 69/6 states that closeness on a party vote is not enough and there would have to be some unusual circumstances to warrant the Speaker ruling that a personal vote be held on a matter—for example if there was some confusion about the result. I was not in the Chair. The Speaker in the Chair though has certainly ruled in accordance with both the Standing Order and the existing Speaker’s ruling.
Woodhouse Michael: Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3409. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not wish to prolong the points of order but I do think that given the comment you did make about innuendo and for the future order of the House it is worth pointing out that the reasons that the National Party did not vote its full complement on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill had nothing to do with the absence of members from the precinct.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3409. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And at that point I think we should leave this matter because it is not helpful to the proceedings of the House today.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3408. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. New Zealand First was the party that called for the personal vote last time. There was an outcome that I do not wish to discuss other than to say that if you have—not to specify the exact circumstance—parties A B and C in combination and A turns up and B and C do not and A has exhausted its proxies what is the situation then? I think you can have legitimate concerns correctly raised without doubting anybody else’s integrity when that circumstance happens as it did the other night because people were not here. One of party A B or C was not here and the question becomes well where are they? And is the proxy being correctly exercised given that the major party may have exhausted all theirs as well? I would like to know whether you could give some consideration to that not raising it as a contest now.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3407. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I just want to acknowledge that the House has sat this morning in extended hours to complete business that required the attention of the House before the end of this month and to simply say I think it is a very good use of provisions under the new Standing Orders and I thank members for their willingness to participate in those debates.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3408. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable members for their contributions. Andrew Williams in raising his point of order referred to Standing Order 141 which is the relevant Standing Order. But I would also draw his attention to Speaker’s ruling 69/6 where Speaker Kidd has previously ruled that “Closeness on a party vote is not enough of itself for a personal vote unless there is something that might make a material difference. This might arise for example out of some elements of confusion.” I think that where we see a pattern that is not unexpected in a vote like that closeness of itself is not sufficient for the Speaker to allow a personal vote. Obviously the Speaker in the Chair at the time had the absolute right and ruled in accordance with both the Standing Order and the previous Speaker’s ruling on the matter. There would need to be some evidence of something unusual for a personal vote to be called.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Voting—Personal Vote Following Close Party Vote 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3407. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member refers directly to the written content of the Standing Orders but would need also to read into alongside that the Standing Orders that relate to party votes and the position that whips are in—some position of privilege I might add—to be able to cast party votes appropriately at the time. In order for there to be a personal vote called on a vote that was otherwise a party vote regardless of the close nature of that vote there would also need to be some evidence that the whip did not hold the proxies and did not have the full authority to cast all of the votes that were cast by the whip. In the 16 years that we have had MMP that has been a well-understood convention that has developed over that period of time. So although it is true to say that 60 to 61 is very close—in fact it could not be closer as the member put it—the reality is that unless there was some evidence presented to the Speaker indicating that there was reason to believe that the whip was inappropriately casting a vote one way or the other then the convention would be that the party vote stands.
Smith Lockwood: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3407. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member the honourable Leader of the House.
Auchinvole Chris: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3453. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I would like to take a relatively short call on this Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill not that it is a subject that does not excite interest but it is just that we have already heard from speakers who are well versed in the justice system and I think they have covered an awful lot of good points. I enjoyed listening to Charles Chauvel speaking about his earlier occupation and it is one that does stir a lot of interest. 
The bill which has been introduced by Dr Kennedy Graham seeks to deal with what is assuredly a most important issue: ensuring we have confidence in the judges who hear public cases and that they are free from any conflict of interest that could lead consciously or unconsciously to incorrect decisions being made. The Law Commission acknowledged the serious nature of the issue raised by Dr Graham’s bill and I think it is a credit to him that it attracted the attention of the Law Commission. That being said it still leaves a number of questions. Is there a legitimate issue whether a practice or perception that needs to be addressed; if so is this bill the right way to do that? Do we have a problem in New Zealand that requires a pecuniary interests register for judges with the issues that such a register requires? The Law Commission gives this matter careful treatment in its issues paper. 
It is important to note there have in fact been very few cases where pecuniary interests have been the basis for a challenge to a judge sitting on a case in New Zealand. The commission’s paper outlines the positions of other common law countries. New Zealand is substantially the same as England and Wales and Australia and Canada have no plans to introduce registers for judges’ pecuniary interests. The Law Commission concludes that the law relating to when judges must recuse themselves from trials is both well settled and consistent with comparable jurisdictions. 
This bill would not clarify the issues surrounding the process by which a judge is removed from presiding on a case. The bill is directed towards a substantive identification of conflicts but not the process surrounding the conflicts in general. The commission’s view and my view as well is that there is no need for a legislative intervention. Instead any deficiencies in the way judges apply the process for recusal decisions are I think better made by the judiciary itself through the rules of the court or similar procedural measures. I support however the proposal to forward the bill to a select committee. Thank you.