edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Stewart Barbara: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5161] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First it is my pleasure to take a call in this debate. We believe that this is a very important bill. This bill is essentially about supporting children. We always say that children are our future and they deserve the support of both of their parents. Therefore it is essential to ensure that liable parents meet their financial obligations towards their children. We want to ensure greater compliance than there currently is. We are very aware that non-payment of child support is a very serious issue and of course the State picks up the responsibility for those people who do not pay. 
Judith Collins 
: You mean the taxpayer Barbara. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: The taxpayer picks up that cost and ensures that parents receive some money to look after their children. So really we are saying that measures need to be put in place. We want the taxpayers’ liability reduced. We realise there will always be challenges with any bill that deals with this type of issue and we want to see genuine action taken as this bill is attempting to do. We want to encourage parents to pay their child support. We note that there is an incentive that includes the writing off of certain debt payments for parents whose payments have lapsed but parents must still pay the arrears they owe including some of the penalties. We believe that only limited relief is offered here and we understand too that there is provision for reviewing this if liable parents default on their obligations. 
We acknowledge that basically parents are financially responsible for their children. We know that parents are skipping the country and not paying and this is an attempt to ensure that some of those lapsed parents get back on track. We want to increase the compliance rate of parents who fail to meet their child support responsibilities. We do not want the State to have a greater bill. We know that parents have a collective responsibility for their children. It is always a challenge when parents structure their financial affairs to reduce their personal incomes and their financial liabilities. It is a shame that in these instances the loser is always the children. 
I hope that this bill will encourage lapsed parents to re-enter the system. We need to get them back into the system. This may be one way to try to ensure that liable parents re-enter the system. We believe that this is a first measure. It is a genuine attempt to take some action on this issue. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill.
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5156] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Hobbs Marian: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5156] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Bennett Paula: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Bennett Paula: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5155] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 As I was saying I was quite disturbed to hear the Minister mention “trust accounts and the National Party” and what that would mean in respect of the use of information provision. I say that is absolutely appalling because the bill talks about any information via the Inland Revenue Department. The Minister in the chair before dinner—[ 
Interruption 
] Minister Benson-Pope obviously was not listening so let me remind him. Minister Cunliffe took a call and we were talking about privacy and people’s information being safe. That is extremely important to us. Those sex offenders those people who are sex victims and those sorts of people—we were very concerned about their information being private and their privacy. However the Minister in the chair the Hon David Cunliffe felt that that was an appropriate time to make a crack and a bit of a joke about trust accounts and the Inland Revenue Department. I would like to say that I found it absolutely appalling given the Act and the amendments to it in this bill that are looking after these important issues that he should be entering into that sort of debate. It is certainly not an issue that we take lightly and we find it so important that people have their information treated accordingly as it deserves to be treated under Part 2. Thank you very much Mr Chairman.
Yates Dianne: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5155] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cunliffe David: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5153] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Some time ago I had the privilege of being the Associate Minister of Revenue and back in those days I was involved in the Cabinet process around the early design of this Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). I raise that because it was indeed several years ago. It is a pleasure to see the bill before the House today but I think that nobody in the House would call that process rushed through. Rather we commend the Social Services Committee for its thorough consideration of the submissions and commend its report to the House. It contains a strong majority recommendation that the bill be passed forthwith. 
Perhaps I could repeat my offer to the Opposition that if its members have any constructive suggestions to add as to how the problems might be resolved then I am sure the public of New Zealand would be very interested. At the moment the Opposition gives every impression of being a tired hopeless Opposition which has consigned itself to those benches opposite for many many years to come.
Cunliffe David: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5150] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I rise to speak very briefly. A question has been raised by members opposite about the clauses surrounding victims of sexual abuse. In part this arose from the gender-neutralisation provisions that are now in the Crimes Act. Most frequently this would arise when a young male could be abused potentially by an older woman who subsequently has a child. It could also arise when the child of a female victim of abuse is placed with foster parents. 
Beyond that I comment briefly that Judith Collins the member who has just resumed her seat has had a very expensive speech—expensive in terms of votes I imagine for the Opposition—because I cannot imagine that too many separated fathers would be likely to vote for National after having been impugned by her in such a sad way. If her best argument against this bill is that anybody who has got himself or herself into a separation situation is liable to continue to default and treat this as an incentive then I think that simply does not accord with the reality of the situations people find themselves in. I say to Ms Collins that she might pause to reflect on her colleague who took the debate to the area of GST repayment—of itself a fascinating subject but one that we would leave for another day.
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5149] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Moroney Sue: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Moroney Sue: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5149] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Cunliffe David: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5147] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I will make just a very brief couple of comments. The first is to rebut the contention that this is in any way a dishonest bill that seeks to hide debt. Frankly I think that was a very unworthy suggestion made by the previous speaker bar one. Of course the bill does not hide debt; it does not even reduce debt unless it is repaid by the liable parent. So the only way that debt would go down is—and it is good news—that the kids have received the outstanding money. Neither does the bill hide penalties because the penalties are not reduced on the Inland Revenue Department’s balance sheet unless and until the underlying debt has been repaid and then only in keeping with the terms of the binding arrangement. If that arrangement is not met the full penalties stay on the books. 
In contrast I would like to thank the previous speaker Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First who has I think stated the issue very plainly. This is a hard problem. It is hard emotionally. We are dealing with families at the most difficult and critical point in their lives—at the time of a relationship break-up. We are dealing with parents in trauma and kids who are displaced. Of course if it was an easy problem it would have been solved years ago. But at least despite the emotional and technical difficulties of the issue we are honestly trying to do something about it. I am not saying that this solution is perfect. The Social Services Committee did not think it was perfect but it thought it was worth doing and we have a solid majority behind getting this legislation passed. 
I guess that my challenge to the Opposition is: if not this bill then what does it propose? The job of an Opposition is not just to oppose but also occasionally also to propose a better idea than the Government proposes. Any Opposition that looks as though it may one day come into Government should be able to demonstrate to the public that it can think up policy and do policy. So far there has been no evidence at all from a single Opposition speaker that Opposition members have a single positive idea to contribute about how to solve this problem. I challenge them to tell us what those ideas are if they have any. If not frankly they should put up or shut up.
Cunliffe David: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5140] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I want to take a brief opportunity to correct some factual inaccuracies and points made by the previous two speakers. The first of those was a misinterpretation of the purpose of the bill. It is clearly stated that the bill’s purpose is to increase the compliance of parents currently failing to meet their obligations to their children. I do not think there is a member in this Chamber who would not want parents to fulfil their obligations to their children and who would want to weaken those obligations. Certainly the Government wants to see those obligations met and strengthened. That is why this bill in part creates the power to administratively review child support levels where there is reason to believe that parents may be hiding the true level of their assets and income—more on that later. 
The second inaccuracy from the previous speaker but one was that most of the outstanding debt is in the underlying debt and not the penalties. In fact there is $1012 million in outstanding child support of which $584000 or a little over half is currently owed in accumulated penalties. 
But of course the largest flaw in what the Opposition is saying is the argument that we are somehow letting parents off scot-free by giving away all the penalties. In fact the substance of the bill is quite different from that and members know that. The bill allows individuals to enter into a binding scheme of arrangement with the Inland Revenue Department to pay off their arrears. If they do and only if they do then a proportion of—that is some of—their penalties will be remitted as an incentive. If they do not enter into such an arrangement they will receive no write-down of penalties but in any case the bill provides that they cannot have all of their penalties written off. So disappointingly we are seeing a degree of hyperbole and exaggeration creep into the speeches of Opposition members. 
That brings me to the final point which is that the Opposition seems to think this is an opportunity to take the debate into places that are not relevant to it. I ask Opposition members to reflect on the fact that clauses in the bill would allow the Inland Revenue Department to look through income to assets and wealth. There are a number of rich parents—particularly it has to be said some rich dads—who are not being frank with people about how many assets they have and where they spend money. Trust funds are often employed to hide that money and that is not the only circumstance in which those trust fund arrangements are used. One would ask Opposition members whether they really want to go there because I for one can think of a number of other trust funds that could be drawn into the debate.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5137] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3A clause 4 as amended clause 5 new clauses 5A to 5C as amended and clause 6 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Clause 3A clause 4 as amended clause 5 new clauses 5A to 5C as amended and clause 6 as amended agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5137] 
A party vote was called for on the question That the a 
mendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendments as amended agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5136] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 54 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5136] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 55 in the name of Peter Brown to the amendments to proposed new subpart 1A of Part 6A in clause 4 and to proposed new clause 5B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 54 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5136] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 53 in the name of Peter Brown to clause 4 be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5135] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of David Bennett to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add to Part 6A the following new section: 
69OEExemption for small businesses 
Nothing in this part applies to a business that has fewer than 10 employees at the time that the provisions of this part apply to that business.
Fenton Darien: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5135] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Horomia Parekura: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5132] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The introduction of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is quite specific. It states: “This bill is intended to protect certain categories of employees …”. When I listen to other people I wonder and I want to understand why they have missed what this Government has done. Certainly in relation to this bill the minimum wage has increased six times in the last 6 years. The issues about employees’ rights are quite clear and people revel in that. The macro level in this country—in the sense of small-business development—sings out and continues to say: “Long live the Labour Government!”. Well I will continue to say that because this Government has most certainly been the best friend of small and medium businesses that this country has had for a long time. What is so wrong with protecting employees’ rights? What is so wrong with doing that? What is so wrong with giving a fair toss for the workers? The Government is unlike some other organisations that have deep pockets of cash that they give away to run other agendas. 
The bill is quite simple; it is no big issue. The bill is about people’s rights and certainly the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has worked hard on it. This Government has continued to develop the macro level so that the micro-business structure in this country will survive for a long long time. The advent and the wish of people in the sense of keeping a strong entrepreneurial-type economy alive is something that this bill supports. The unions have done well in terms of participating in the economy and so have employers. That is what this bill is about; it is about continuing to make sure that workers’ rights are recognised.
King Colin: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5124] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The Employment Relations Amendment Bill which we are presently considering in no way resembles what this country needs to reinforce the words that were spoken in the Speech from the Throne this year. We need robust and vigorous laws that will encourage an economy to grow. What we are still confronted with is a Labour Government waxing lyrical in terms that would put the average working New Zealander to sleep. We are certainly nowhere nearly as motivated to the level we should be. The Employment Relations Amendment Bill is undoubtedly dumbing down the ambitions and enterprise of a whole generation. It is with much concern that National opposes this amendment. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that this is the 15th amendment to the Employment Relations Act and it reminds me of that Simon and Garfunkel song about how many ways there are to leave one’s lover. In actual fact this Employment Relations Amendment Bill in effect is “15 ways to screw the nation and its enterprise”. It is hugely concerning. It reminds me very much of the Garfield comic strip. We see Garfield the cat yawning away dreaming about warm fuzzy moments and notions of self-interest which serves only to reinforce bad behaviour. That is what we see within this Employment Relations Amendment Bill. In no way does it stir up and conjure enterprise within this nation. What we see is very similar to what we see in old Garfield the cat. Inside this tired and lazy Labour Party is corruption slothfulness and wastefulness. That tone is set from the very top and it is flowing through society. 
When we look at what is across on the other side of the Chamber in a tired and wasteful Government we see there are some old burnt-out MPs whom the electorates said they did not want to see again. They voted them out. We see them sitting there dormant tired and sleepy although the electorates have said they do not want them. We now have in front of us legislation that New Zealand does not want to see. When we start telling an employer who he or she should take on and employ it cuts across the enterprise that this country needs.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:5119] 
9.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Has he received any reports on the response to the Government’s newly expanded rates rebate scheme? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Yes. I have been advised that as at 1 September rates rebates totalling over $10.8 million have been approved for 23855 New Zealand households. This compares with just 4200 households that received a rebate for the whole of the 2005-06 year. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has he seen any other reports welcoming the Government’s rates rebate scheme? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes indeed I have. I have seen the comment of the president of Local Government New Zealand made in April 2005 that Local Government New Zealand is thrilled with the change. I have also seen a report from a Coromandel pensioner Pat Williams that the rates rebate offer was welcome. He said: “I am happy. I received the full $500 rebate. It’s a good thing.” He is absolutely correct. 
John Carter 
: Is the Minister aware that the costs he and the Helen Clark Labour Government have loaded on to local government ratepayers are conservatively estimated to be at least $500 million—10 times the amount he intends to give in rates rebates? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am aware that the member keeps repeating things that outside this House I would describe with a three-letter word—but I cannot here so I will not. That member is the member who constantly repeats that 67 pieces of legislation have been imposed that impose costs. Well I can tell the House that of those 67 pieces of legislation 26 have been shown to impose zero cost on local government and 28 of them were introduced in part or in whole because local government had asked for them. This Government has contributed $661 million in the last 12 months. It is the biggest-growing contributor to local government coffers bar none. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware of any reports formal or otherwise from local government on an independent rates inquiry that has been set up as a result of New Zealand First’s initiative? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am aware of numerous reports—far more than you would give me time to refer to Madam Speaker—praising and acknowledging that this independent inquiry is indeed the appropriate way to proceed with looking at longer-term rating issues.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:5117] 
7.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Does he agree that the current approach to processes of iwi authenticity and mandate for the Te Arawa Lakes settlement are robust; if so how does he justify the statement of his Associate Minister in the House last week that he was unable to give an assurance regarding Ngati Rangiteaorere that iwi will not multi-vote on the basis of whakapapa links to other iwi involved in the claim? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Yes but I would note that the member seems to be confusing the Te Arawa Lakes settlement with the Nga Kaihautu o Te Arawa Executive Council settlement to which the Associate Minister last week was actually referring in his remarks. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: How can settlements be robust when negotiators from iwi such as Ngati Tama Te Atiawa Ngati Whatua Ngati Awa Te Uri o Hau and other tribal nations have concluded that the process is flawed and the rules are inconsistent? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It remains my conviction that the process is indeed robust. 
Pita Paraone 
: Does the Minister think that reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill will have any impact on the terms of the settlement and the effect of the bill; if so how? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes. I think they give effect to the intent of the negotiation in good faith between the two parties. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: In light of the inconsistencies how can any settlement be considered to be full and final and what is the Minister’s response to the call from iwi to return to Parliament to seek a just full and final settlement? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think it is presumptuous for those not involved in a negotiation to call on those involved in a negotiation to return to Parliament when they have negotiated in good faith and reached settlement in good faith. I note that those settlements have been reached over a number of years by a number of Governments. I think we must respect good-faith negotiations properly concluded. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I seek leave to table a publication by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust called  
M 
aori Experiences of the Direct Negotiation Process: Case Studies and Personal Experiences of Various Negotiators on the Negotiation Process with the Crown to Settle Claims under the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Locke Keith: Motions — Palestinian Parliament—Arrest of Members 
Locke Keith: Motions — Palestinian Parliament—Arrest of Members 
[Volume:633;Page:5103] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That this House supports the right of parliamentarians to freely pursue their duties; notes the opposition of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the European Parliament to Israel’s arrest of more than 20 members of the Palestinian Parliament; and calls for the immediate and unconditional release of the Palestinian Speaker Abdelaiziz el-Dweik; the Deputy Prime Minister Nasser al-Shaer; and the other arrested Ministers and members of the Palestinian Parliament. 
Motion agreed to.
Motions — Palestinian Parliament—Arrest of Members 
Motions — Palestinian Parliament—Arrest of Members 
[Volume:633;Page:5103] 
Tuesday 5 September 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Palestinian Parliament—Arrest of Members 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That this House supports the right of parliamentarians to freely pursue their duties; notes the opposition of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the European Parliament to Israel’s arrest of more than 20 members of the Palestinian Parliament; and calls for the immediate and unconditional release of the Palestinian Speaker Abdelaiziz el-Dweik; the Deputy Prime Minister Nasser al-Shaer; and the other arrested Ministers and members of the Palestinian Parliament. 
Motion agreed to.
Blue Jackie: Official Information (Openness of District  Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Blue Jackie: Official Information (Openness of District  Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5270] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I thank my colleague Nicky Wagner for her kind comments. In fact I thank all the parties for their supportive comments tonight and I am very gratified that the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill will be going to the select committee. 
Comments have been made that District Health Boards New Zealand is secretive and perhaps a private club. It is reassuring that the Minister feels very confident that when we examine the workings of District Health Boards New Zealand in the Health Committee we will be reassured that there are no deep dark secrets. I am also reassured to hear from Maryan Street who has been an employee of District Health Boards New Zealand about her insights into how the organisation works. This is all very very reassuring. I thank Tariana Turia for her party’s support and I thank Sue Kedgley for her comments about other organisations that could come under this bill. 
All parties of course will now have the opportunity to examine the bill in the select committee. The select committee is the appropriate forum to debate whether District Health Boards New Zealand should stay out of the Official Information Act or come within that Act and be subject to its requirements. So I say thank you very much to all the parties and the members for their comments today and I look forward to debating this bill at the select committee. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Health Committee.referred to Health Committee
Turner Judy: Official Information (Openness of District  Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Official Information (Openness of District  Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5268] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of this first reading of the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill. We are concerned as are others who have spoken tonight about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny—of any kind—of this organisation. 
As I have been sitting here tonight I have been thinking of all the questions I have. I agree with the New Zealand First speaker Barbara Stewart that it is very difficult to get answers to these questions from any reliable source. What does District Health Boards New Zealand do? What policy initiatives are attributable to it? Who does it negotiate with and on what matters does it negotiate? Does it purchase products or services? Why was it set up? Has its purpose changed over time? What is the yearly budget? How is that budget spent? Does District Health Boards New Zealand have a work programme and what is it? When the Auckland District Health Board pulled away what did that mean? When the Minister reported this evening that it would soon be returning to the fold what did that mean? He clarified that contrary to popular belief its departure was not due to a disagreement over tertiary services so what was the problem? The fact is that there are many questions and these questions highlight the need to support this bill to go to the select committee. United Future is pleased to do so.
Mark Ron: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5257] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the New Zealand Defence Force personnel branch’s policy on equal employment opportunities for Defence Force personnel. It shows that the military has had an equal opportunities employment policy in place for women—for all people—since 1997 the time when it signed up to the agreement. In 1990 the Defence Act was amended. Further to that on the same page are figures that show the number of women in the defence forces has decreased from 1352 in 1990 to 1318 in 2001. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5248] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Turner Judy: Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5248] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support the recommendation of the Education and Science Committee on the Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill. However I want to state that we support the original intention of the bill. The motive behind it was extremely worthy but I suspect that what happened was that a good idea failed to step up to the next notch to be not just a good idea but a workable one. But the intention was worthwhile. 
When I was thinking about this speech it made me hark back to the issue we faced earlier in this parliamentary term in relation to taxi drivers. This House had thought through very poorly some provisions in law and we needed to move very quickly to exclude a group of people who had been unwittingly caught up in those provisions. So it is really important that when we look at legislating in this regard we think it through very very carefully and aim to get it right so that we do not have those situations happening again. 
The ongoing issue of safety for New Zealand children while at school should however not be allowed to be discharged with this bill. Teachers parents and boards of trustees—and of course this House—must remain alert to new possibilities to strengthen our protection around children. I like what the previous speaker Mr Flavell said—that we must be always alert to new opportunities to do better in that regard. We have a track record that is nothing to be proud of and United Future will certainly be supportive of any workable initiatives that will strengthen safety around children in our schools. But we support the discharge of this bill.
Stewart Barbara: Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5245] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill. We support the sentiment behind this bill. The bottom line is that if the bill did make it safer for children in our schools then it would have to be passed. I know that the Hon Brian Donnelly has stated that many times. Children are at the centre of his world and he would definitely be behind anything to make children safer in the classroom and at school. 
But at the end of the day we must go with the Education and Science Committee’s recommendations particularly when the select committee states in its report back on the bill: “We are unanimous in our recommendation that this bill not proceed.” As the Minister has said and as the previous speaker said the select committee worked very hard on this bill. It worked through all of the legislative possibilities but it was unable to find provisions more satisfactory than those currently in place. The select committee also said that it was not satisfied that the bill as drafted would make schoolchildren here in New Zealand any safer. 
We heard from previous speakers that they have sought ways to amend the bill in order to achieve Gerry Brownlee’s intention but that they were unable to do so without creating inconsistencies in the current law. We also know that at this point in time the principal Act provides the Minister of Education with the power to intervene when it is believed that the welfare of students is at risk. We believe that those powers as they currently are in the law are sufficient to address the inappropriate election appointment or co-optation of a trustee. 
We will support the select committee’s recommendations at this point in time.
Roy Eric: Southland Agricultural and Pastoral  Association Empowering Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Southland Agricultural and Pastoral  Association Empowering Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5239] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee 
referred to Primary Production Committee 
 for consideration and that the committee finally report the bill on or before 7 October 2006 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Moroney Sue: Southland Agricultural and Pastoral  Association Empowering Bill — First Reading 
Moroney Sue: Southland Agricultural and Pastoral  Association Empowering Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5237] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise in support of the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill brought forward for us by Eric Roy. To reiterate Damien O’Connor’s words earlier Labour supports this bill. 
Ascot Park has to be one of the few places in New Zealand that I have not visited for the purposes of going to an active live race meeting. I have however attended another type of meeting there. It is good to see that the codes are all working together on that facility and it seems that the bill before us will in fact make sure that the facility has even better use in the future. I think that bodes very well. 
The meeting that I recall there was probably back in the early 1990s when I held a meeting of local stable hands and stud workers to form the Equine Workers Union. If members in the House have never heard of the Equine Workers Union there is a very good reason why. I am almost too depressed to talk about it but fortunately that union did get off the ground. It went through all the processes of being formed and even gained the first national award ever. I was the principal negotiator for that national award for stable hands and stud workers. Unfortunately the Employment Contracts Act was enacted by the National Government shortly thereafter and that national award was probably one of the shortest-lived in history. So that is a piece of history associated with Ascot Park and the one time I visited there. 
This bill tells us the community is behind the project; that there is community enthusiasm for it. In my experience that means the project will work because when a community is behind something and pushing for its development then it stands a very good chance of success. It seems to me that this is a win-win situation. It is good to see there is wide support in the House for this bill to go through. But I have to question Eric Roy’s contemplating that the best equestrian centre in New Zealand will be in Southland. I do not want to seem too parochial about the matter but living right next door to Cambridge I would mount a challenge that the Cambridge area would do very well in terms of equestrian centres. Of course New Zealand – wide it is something that New Zealand is well-known for and that we do very well as a country. So it is good to see further developments in this area. 
I look forward to hearing the report back from the select committee—the Primary Production Committee if that is where it is headed. I wish the committee well in its deliberations and hope the bill has a quick passage through the House.
Foss Craig: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Foss Craig: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5231] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I will just make one quick point to Marian Hobbs. I think New Zealand investors in the new Westpac bank will actually be in a better position than before. I do not think anyone in this House likes to line up behind Australians for anything whatsoever and people from my good area of Hawke’s Bay of course are lining up and trying to get their apples into Australia—I had to get that point in. I acknowledge again the work of Marian Hobbs; I thank her very much. She is in good company as a former schoolteacher who puts sophisticated legislation like this through the House—the Minister of Finance of course was a university lecturer. In the spirit of this Westpac New Zealand Bill and in the spirit of good financial management and prudential setting up for New Zealand—and of being on a level playing field with the Australians—the National Party is very pleased to support the third reading of the bill. 
Bill read a third time.
Hobbs Marian: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5231] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Westpac New Zealand Bill be now read a third time 
. I wish to give some reassurances in this third reading. I wish to reassure New Zealand depositors with Westpac that their deposits will be as safe with Westpac after the passing of this legislation as they were before. Under Australian law in the event of bank failure Australian depositors have preference over the assets of the bank including the New Zealand assets of the bank. The assets of Westpac New Zealand as a subsidiary will not be available to Australian depositors of the Australian bank in the event of failure. In addition as a registered bank Westpac New Zealand will be required to comply with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s capital adequacy and other regulatory requirements. That was the purpose behind the Reserve Bank of New Zealand asking Westpac—as it has previously asked banks—to comply in this way. 
The second point I will make is on the question of transparency. This bill is transparent. It is not just a decision that has been made by the Minister of Finance. Under this bill Westpac New Zealand has to disclose what assets and liabilities it will vest in the new entity and it has to have that vesting order published in the  
Gazette 
 and through the Statutory Regulations series. 
 Also during the debate on this particular bill there have been claims that the Minister of Finance makes these decisions. This is not so. The Governor-General may by Order in Council approve a proposal signed by Westpac to vest certain assets and liabilities of Westpac into Westpac New Zealand. The Order in Council can be made only on the advice of the Minister of Finance after he has received a recommendation from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. So there are cross-checks the entire way through in order to ensure that our people in New Zealand who deposit with Westpac New Zealand are as safe as anybody else with their deposits. I just wanted to clarify that. 
I also want to give my thanks to members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for meeting the deadlines to enable Westpac to meet its 1 November date. The legislation was an essential way of doing this clearly so that we could do it securely without having a whole lot of other work that would entail cost for Westpac. My thanks also go to the officials who appeared before the select committee to offer clear advice on the issue. 
The member for Wellington Central often gets these jobs from head office. This member was a school principal and a teacher not a financial person. On a number of occasions I have needed to have bank officials in my room giving me advice and taking me through this legislation. I am very grateful to them for doing that and I have learnt a lot as we have gone through the process. I am very pleased that the Westpac New Zealand Bill has been given the support and the detailed attention of good members of this House.
Tisch Lindsay: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5227] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Are we talking about one debate on all the parts and then we will move back into the House for the third reading? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is what leave has been sought for. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Hobbs Marian: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:5227] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee of the whole House to take the bill as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed.
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:5207] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document from the Housing New Zealand Corporation showing that the statement made by National’s housing spokesperson Mr Phil Heatley in this House this afternoon that there are 14000 people on the corporation’s waiting list is incorrect. In fact there are 11651—which of course is fewer than the 13000 National sold off. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon Member 
: There is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is objection? Thank you. As I have said if members would please be quiet when I am putting the question it would be a lot easier to hear whether there is any objection. There is objection.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:5207] 
11.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What reports has she received on the success of the Government’s investment in initiatives to reduce drug importations? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I have seen a report detailing a significant drug bust by the New Zealand Customs Service netting approximately 5 kilograms of crystal methamphetamine. This has an estimated street value of $5 million. I commend the New Zealand Customs Service as its work in this area contributes to safer communities for all families young and old. 
Dianne Yates 
: How is the Government’s investment in this area reflected in the Customs Service’s drug seizures? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: This year there have been 42 significant drugs seizures by the Customs Service and 36 arrests all of which have proceeded to prosecution. In the calendar year to date the New Zealand Customs Service has seized up to 110 kilograms of crystal methamphetamine and in excess of 1.38 million capsules of precursor substance used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The Government has made a significant investment in tackling drug problems from reducing supply and demand to community programmes increased law enforcement powers and continued information-sharing methods to name but a few measures.