edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Wilkinson Kate: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — Second Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8375] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I would like to speak very very briefly in support of the second reading of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Another lawyer! 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I confess that I was a lawyer practising immigration law somewhat. 
I have to say that the bill is not perfect by any means but I certainly do not intend to repeat what previous speakers have said; they have gone into great detail as to what is in the bill and we do not need to repeat that. 
Immigration advisers have a pivotal role to play and I do not think we can overemphasise that. People rely on immigration advisers when making life-changing decisions. Many want to come to New Zealand and be as privileged as we are to call it home. They may sell up their belongings sell their houses and travel miles and miles to get here relying on advice that says that when they get here they can live here study here work here or visit here. The integrity of our whole system relies on the integrity of those immigration advisers. By licensing those advisers albeit with some exemptions this bill puts some checks and balances in place—some competency standards some complaint procedures and some disciplinary procedures. 
My colleague Dr Lockwood Smith mentioned the level of bureaucracy that may arise from this bill and I am somewhat concerned about this issue. We must be wary to ensure that it does not like many other departments grow and grow into a monster. I hope that the bill will improve and raise the standard of immigration advice in New Zealand but that the cost of such a standard is not overshadowed by another bloated bureaucracy. 
That is all I really need to say in taking this brief call. We support the second reading of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill.
Guy Nathan: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Guy Nathan: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8369] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I acknowledge the good work that the Law and Order Committee did around this Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. This evening we have heard in particular that this bill has been drafted redrafted and redrawn about six times to get to where it is in its present form. Sitting here listening to the addresses for the last hour or so I know there is a lot of support around the House to get it right. Although we do have some concerns that some of the issues may not be addressed fully and in the way the National Party would like them to be addressed I think this is a good starting point. 
In particular I raise some concerns from the Horowhenua-Kapiti region where we do at times particularly in rural communities find that it is a bit of a jaunt to get to a JP. Some of those in our rural communities have a bit of a struggle getting into a vehicle finding a JP and getting some of their documents signed so I think that one of the real concerns out in rural communities around New Zealand is that JPs are accessible to those in areas that may be a little bit isolated. I think that one of the really important things for JPs is that they are accessible. It is great to have JPs running businesses because people who need to get documents signed know that they can approach their JP normally between the hours of 9 to 5. 
This bill will actually allow JPs to have some training which is very very important. The most important thing is that JPs will have this training before they are approved or declined by the ministry which I think is really important. 
National supports this bill and there is a lot of support across the House. However we do have some reservations that longer term I think we will have to look at addressing. But the bill is a step in the right direction. 
Bill read a second time.
Yates Dianne: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Yates Dianne: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8368] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I wish to speak on the second reading of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill and thank my colleague Martin Gallagher who chaired the committee and who did a good deal of work—not only on this bill but also he has done a tremendous amount of work with justices of the peace. I know he has made it a point throughout his parliamentary career to attend their conferences and to keep up to date with their issues. He was obviously a good person to chair the committee to deal with this issue of justices of the peace. 
It is a role that has changed over a period of time and I note that this bill does make some provisions as has been said by a number of other members in making sure that people have community support and that those who seek to be nominated or who are nominated by others get that community support and have a history of working in a community and being responsible to the communities in which they live. 
They need that community respect in order to carry out their roles and it is not an easy role. Many times justices of the peace get hauled out of bed at 3.00 in the morning by the police in order to sign a search warrant. Many of them have their privacy invaded. They have people going to their houses wanting signatures at all times of the day and night and they do a tremendous job. I would also like to thank those particular justices of the peace who work within new communities in New Zealand and who play the role often not only of giving legal advice but also they are there to help people who have language difficulties in coming to terms with New Zealand life and often at times when they need witnesses. 
I particularly want to thank those justices of the peace who are based at universities who actually work at a university and deal with the many overseas students who constantly need forms witnessed and who need the services of a justice of the peace and those employers who give people who are justices of the peace time from their work in which to deal with this public service. 
So I do thank those who were involved with the bill and I also thank those who worked on the aspects relating to training discipline and retirement which has been mentioned. I thank the members of the Law and Order Committee those who made submissions and those from the justices organisation themselves who are a very concerned group. They are concerned not only with their public duty but also with how our courts function and they basically have a great sense of community service. I commend this bill to the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8361] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I am a staunch advocate of the role of JPs in communities. I spoke on 19 July last year on the role and background of a JP. I mentioned in particular the very ancient and honourable status that has been conferred on JPs over the last 600 years. The Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill acknowledges the status of retired JPs and that is very good. As Martin Gallagher said that is part of the JP programme that National fully supports. 
The role of the JP has become much more complex in recent times as a result of legislation and training now needs to take place before a warrant can be issued. I think that is a very good move because at that stage one can determine whether the person nominated for the role of justice of the peace is committed to the particular role that will be involved. 
Upskilling and training are very important in the ongoing development of a justice of the peace. I am in favour of there being much stricter vetting of applications when people come forward in order to validate their commitment as individuals to what the role actually entails. There are numerous examples in our communities of people who have the honorific “JP” but in fact are not prepared to do anything. Over this last weekend a JP approached me who had left a district. This person told me that another JP in the same district had died and that there was a third person who had been a justice of the peace for 5 years. That person was not prepared to do any work as a justice of the peace—to witness the signing of documents and to do basic things that a JP is required and on many occasions requested to do. When a JP does not do these very simple tasks in a rural community it is difficult for that community to be serviced. We spoke at length about what should happen. This person is looking to nominate someone and to get the information that is required—CVs and statements of support from organisations to the effect that there needs to be a JP within the area. 
So there are those who have the honorific “JP” but are not prepared to do anything. Maybe in future reviews those people need to be looked at closely and it needs to be decided whether there is a role for them to play in the future. In fact I would advocate that if such people are not prepared to commit to the task then their warrants could be cancelled. That is just a point that maybe we can consider in the future. Then there are those who do valued service and have performed loyal and honourable service for many many years. To them we say “Thank you very much”. 
The Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations has a proud reputation. It has stood the test of time over many many years. It is highly regarded and JPs who take an active part in it are highly regarded. National supports what that association is doing. It is worthy of this Parliament’s recognition and support. National is privileged to be able to support this bill at the second reading.
Vote: Motions — Family Support Tax Credit—Increase 
Vote: Motions — Family Support Tax Credit—Increase 
[Volume:638;Page:8355] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That this House endorses the Family Support Tax Credit increase of $10.00 per week per child that comes into force on 1 April 2007. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Motions — Family Support Tax Credit—Increase 
Hughes Darren: Motions — Family Support Tax Credit—Increase 
[Volume:638;Page:8355] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8316] 
8.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 on behalf of  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement in the House last week that it was “ridiculous” to claim that corruption at Rimutaka Prison went on with the knowledge of management; if so how does he reconcile that with the suspension of Wellington’s regional prisons manager and Barry Matthews’ statement this morning that the concern that management was allowing these things to happen has gradually increased as the inquiry has gone on? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I do stand by my statement and I would like to repeat what the chief executive has said regarding the employment issue currently at Rimutaka Prison—that is that that manager is not under any suspicion of corruption. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If we are to believe the Minister’s statement that it is ridiculous to believe that there is widespread corruption in our prisons why has the Prime Minister in the House today relied so heavily on her own investigation into these matters to prove there is not widespread corruption in our prisons—despite the chief executive acknowledging exactly that? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I do not believe that the chief executive has acknowledged that. In a staff of over 5000 people in a very difficult area it is inevitable that there will be individuals who from time to time do not abide by the law or by the procedures we lay down. We will identify those people stand them down dismiss them and prosecute them wherever necessary. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that last year the manager of Waikeria Prison was appointed to “address the culture” at Rimutaka Prison because it had twice the number of incidents where force was used by guards on inmates as at similar facilities; and why is the current investigation required unless it is not intended by the Prime Minister to be a whitewash? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I can acknowledge that work has been under way to change the culture at Rimutaka Prison for well over a year. Further investigations are currently under way to identify any people who may not have abided by procedures current practice or the law at Rimutaka Prison. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister think that it reflects well on him that by his own admission there have been investigations into these matters for over a year but it is only since the time that Simon Power has been asking questions about these matters that guards have actually been suspended or put off the job for engaging in these corrupt activities? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: My recollection is that Simon Power has been asking the same question for over 18 months. That is not why we are making progress here. We will identify any faults and any mistakes in the corrections system and make changes and take action wherever necessary.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8314] 
6.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: By how much are Working for Families tax credits increasing on 1 April 2007? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House that the Working for Families tax credits will increase by $10 per week per child on 1 April. For a Kaitaia family like Josephine and William and their four children between the ages of 12 and 3 years who are currently receiving $263 per week in family tax credits it means they will be another $40 a week better off receiving in total $303 in targeted tax relief. Under National’s policy—which the electorate rejected of course at the last election—the same family would not have been $303 better off; it would have been $293 worse off. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: How many families are receiving this increase in Working for Families tax credits? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: A total of 360000 families will be entitled to Working for Families tax credits—that is three out of every four families with children will be receiving tax relief—amounting to $1.6 billion annually. The latest $10 per child per week increase applies to all eligible families whether they are in work or reliant on a benefit. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What will be the effect on household income of this increase in Working for Families tax credits? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The latest increase is expected to move an additional 70000 children out of poverty. With the full implementation of the Working for Families package on 1 April New Zealand will move from its current ranking of 18th out of 24 countries in terms of the number of households in poverty into the top half of OECD countries. It will most likely move into the top five alongside Denmark Norway Finland and Sweden. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. What is the rationale for denying New Zealanders who require income support but who are not in employment the opportunity to be supported in meeting their financial responsibilities as families? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Working for Families has already made beneficiaries better off by around $31 a week and from 1 April 2007 family tax credit rates will increase—as I have just said—by a further $10 per week per child. This significant investment in the well-being of all New Zealanders will clearly ensure that families with children that earn less than $35000 a year effectively pay no tax at all.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8312] 
4.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: Of the people who applied for a limited licence in each of the past 3 years after being disqualified from driving or having had their licence suspended how many had their applications granted and how many were dismissed struck out or refused? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Acting Minister for Courts) 
: Applications granted including applications by consent were 3668 in 2004 3403 in 2005 and 2964 in 2006; dismissed were 12 in 2004 16 in 2005 and 17 in 2006; struck out were two in 2004 two in 2005 and none in 2006; and refused applications were 17 in 2004 15 in 2005 and 19 in 2006. The decision to grant a limited licence is made of course by a District Court judge who is required to make such decisions. 
Ron Mark 
: Does he think that allowing people convicted of dangerous driving multiple speeding offences and drunken driving to virtually buy their licences back after losing them is proving an effective deterrent to dangerous driving; if so why does he think that? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I remind the member in the House again that decisions on whether a limited licence can be granted is of course made by a judge under our judicial system. 
Ron Mark 
: Does he think the limited licence application process is working as intended given that there are online forums around entitled “How to get a limited licence for under $400” companies that specialise in the “get your licence back” business advertising now on radio and that 99 out of 100 applications are approved—in effect rubber-stamped? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: There is a clear judicial process for judges to follow to consider whether a limited licence can be granted. These reasons include extreme hardship to the applicant undue hardship to a person other than the applicant and “an order under this section is not contrary to the interests of public safety”. Those are fairly clear guidelines. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table an online forum from www.kiwibiker.co.nz entitled “How to get a Limited License for under $400.00”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table a home page from a legal site that states that despite requiring extreme hardship to be eligible “we usually manage to find hardship for our clients that can be characterised as extreme”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8311] 
2.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports if any has he received on the economic impact of increasing savings in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I continue to receive a large number of such reports. These include reports from the Reserve Bank from a US funds manager Bill Buechler and from a former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating all of which have stressed the importance of increasing savings. Also a substantial report from Treasury late last week makes the point that homeownership is not enough and that New Zealanders also need to increase other forms of savings. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What is the Government doing to encourage New Zealanders to save more? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: From 1 July this year this Government’s KiwiSaver plan will make it easier for New Zealanders to save for their retirement. It is a scheme that has been widely praised both in New Zealand and overseas and I appreciate the widespread support from the House for this proposal. It is a pity that that support did not include that of the National Party whose only aim was to cut taxes for the most well-off rather than to increase the savings of those on moderate incomes. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Did the Minister note in that report from a former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating that policies to force people to save are unpopular that poll-driven donkeys get nothing done and that showing leadership in a bigger-picture view is what is required to deal with our looming superannuation crisis? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. Mr Keating said that leaders get things done and that poll-reading donkeys get nothing done. I think that is a very reasonable comment to make in these circumstances. Australia of course went down the compulsory contribution route as a result of a trade-off in the early 1980s around inflation. My own view remains that compulsion for employees does not need to be a part of KiwiSaver in the future.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
[Volume:638;Page:8306] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No but I can promise the member fireworks every day he cares to turn up in the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think that was a point of order.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
[Volume:638;Page:8306] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Have you had any indications from the Leader of the House as to when we might now expect to see on the Order Paper in the Government’s name the Fireworks Safety Bill from Marian Hobbs or for that matter the Health and Safety in Employment (ILO Convention 155) Amendment Bill in the name of Sue Moroney?
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
[Volume:638;Page:8306] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can you reassure the House that no accredited member of the parliamentary press gallery will be impeded for political reasons from covering events in Parliament that have been announced as being open to the media? I think it is important that there is a ruling on that matter because there is on tape a comment by a member of the police in these precincts saying that the Chinese officials told him that they will cancel the ceremony if Mr Nick Wang an accredited member of the press gallery remains there to take photos of the event. That is clearly political pressure from a foreign power on our Parliament and it cannot be accepted. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. As I have already commented publicly I am receiving reports on that matter and I will act on it when I have got them. I hope to do so very quickly.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
[Volume:638;Page:8306] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I thank the member for raising this issue earlier on. Of course debating Government notice of motion No. 1 will give us a chance to find out whether National has done another massive flip-flop or whether it still opposes lifting 70 percent of the New Zealand kids who are below the poverty line out of poverty. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member who raised the point of order knows Speakers do not rule on hypothetical questions relating to the Standing Orders. However I would note that the Standing Orders can always be suspended under Standing Order 4.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
[Volume:638;Page:8305] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Yes Madam Speaker. I in fact asked you to consider whether such a move was possible. Although Michael Cullen may claim he has not thought of it I doubt that. I note that although the Government would claim that it has plenty on the Order Paper that raises the question of why on earth the House will spend time today in discussing such a self-congratulatory motion as that in Government notice of motion No. 1 on the Order Paper and also why the Government is so bereft of ideas that it has to go to the likes of Lynne Pillay in order to fill out the Order Paper.
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
[Volume:638;Page:8305] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have a new point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Have you? Then does Gerry Brownlee want to speak further to the point of order he raised?
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
[Volume:638;Page:8305] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That is a novel idea; I thank the member for his suggestion. But in order to do that—and the member will note that I have already added an item to the Order Paper as the Speaker outlined just this afternoon—one would have to move sequentially that each of the bills come after member’s order of the day No. 1 the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Of course the numbers would have to be available for those motions to be put as well. I am sure the member has thought that through. I am flattered by his suggestion to the media that for the last year I have managed the House’s business so rapidly entirely in order to prepare for the Crimes (Substitution of Section 59) Amendment Bill next Wednesday but I must admit that my degree of perspicacity is not as large nor as long-range as that.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
[Volume:638;Page:8305] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I need to ask you some questions that relate to the procedures of the House. I ask you to turn your attention to the current Order Paper which has some 13 Government items on it. We note that the Opposition by and large supports about seven of those and that five cannot be progressed because of coalition difficulties which makes the Order Paper in fact very very short indeed. I wonder Madam Speaker whether you could tell us whether it would be possible for the Government to use Standing Order 72 to suspend a large part of the Order Paper next week in order to progress to the next item of business—which conveniently happens to be the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. That would give the House enough time to pass that bill—and would therefore take away all the difficulties that the current Government has in holding its numbers together on that bill—before Easter.
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex House—Procedures Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex Government Business—Procedure 
[Volume:638;Page:8305] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether I could inquire through you of the Government whether the Deputy Prime Minister or other Ministers intend to make a statement to the House regarding the events that occurred last evening when a Chinese newspaper journalist was manhandled within the precincts of this parliamentary complex. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not really a point of order.
Wilson Margaret: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Wilson Margaret: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:638;Page:8305] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Minister of Women’s Affairs informing me that the Government with the agreement of the member in charge has adopted the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill.
Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:638;Page:8305] 
Tuesday 27 March 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Minister of Women’s Affairs informing me that the Government with the agreement of the member in charge has adopted the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill.
Simich Clem: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8595] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Just before the next speaker commences and so that members can take the opportunity afforded by Standing Order 319(4) I want to mention that the Government has issued a financial veto certificate in relation to Dr Pita Sharples’ amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 105. Those amendments relate to the establishment and functions of a Maori Immigration Education Council. The amendments are therefore out of order and no question will be put on them but that Standing Order affords members the opportunity to debate both the amendments and the veto certificate. A copy of the certificate is on the Table.
Worth Richard: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8593] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I sense from the amused smiles of those members on the Government side of the House that we are currently being subjected to something akin to filibustering. The Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill is legislation that the National Party supports. There is no need for the honourable member to espouse the virtues of this legislation which are well known to us are well known to the select committee and—presumably—are well known to the public and to the members of the federation to which the member has spoken. Might we just get on with these events instead of this protracted process of non-advancement in terms of merit? 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 100 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 8 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8574] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Motion agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — First Reading 
Hodgson Pete: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8574] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health)  
on behalf of the 
 Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: I move  
That the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill be considered by the Commerce Committee 
referred to Commerce Committee 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 April 2007.
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8574] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a first time.
Hughes Darren: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8573] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the first reading of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. It has been very interesting to sit through the debate and listen to the contributions that have been made by all the parties. I offer my sympathies to the Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban. The member for Invercargill a National MP just told the nation that they are cousins. It seemed a very nasty thing to do in the debate. What amazes me about this Parliament is how many people do have cousins on the other side of the House; quite a few have been named. I actually have one but I am just too proud to fess up about which one of them it is. I keep it quiet that our family managed to produce someone who ended up in the New Zealand National Party—my goodness! It is obviously a big country that we have here where members of a family can be on different sides of the House. 
The bill is an unusual one because it amends the State-Owned Enterprises Act only to enable something to happen. It is does not actually direct the merger but clearly a lot of work and thought has gone into that in order for it to come to legislation at this time. I am not sure whether we have had a bill similar to this one before. It amends quite an important piece of the reforms from the 1980s and then leaves that provision in the bill in order to bring together these two businesses if that is what the shareholding Ministers want to see happen. 
Up until now of course AgriQuality’s core business has been the provision of food safety and biosecurity services and Asure has focused on the provision of export red meat inspection services. They have gone along those separate paths. Then the issue arose last year when AgriQuality signalled it wanted to move into an area where Asure has been working. I guess that is what prompted the shareholding Ministers who own both companies to ask whether it is in the best interests of the taxpayers—the whole country—as the owners to have competition between two things they already own if that competition ends up reducing the worth of both companies. That is what is being looked at here. 
I do take the point that was made by Mr Roy about the costs; service users of these two agencies do not want to see their costs continuing to go up. I would like to think that maybe there will be some efficiency gains that will flow right through to the people who are having to pay to have these inspection services done. As every speaker has noted biosecurity is a very important part of our country—making sure our reputation is intact for what is a very heavily dependent agriculture industry—and a sector that of course has a world reputation that is the envy of many countries. We have to make sure that that continues to survive in that way. I support the first reading of the bill and its referral to the Commerce Committee.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct—Report 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct—Report 
[Volume:638;Page:8541] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from Keith Locke and Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release of the commission of inquiry report into police conduct. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and I consider that it does justify the immediate attention of the House. I therefore accept the applications. The first application was received from Keith Locke and I therefore call on Mr Locke to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8530] 
4.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: What response has he received to proposals to reform the real estate industry? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand that this is a slightly longer answer than normal but not too long I hope. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The response has been overwhelmingly positive. Deb Leask whose agents attempted to lowball her property sale by around $120000 states she is “absolutely very impressed” with the proposals and that the “overhaul will ensure that consumers are protected from real estate agents who could take advantage of them”. John Ottaway who with his partner Caitlin was ripped off to the tune of $35000 stated: “The overhaul was the best thing that could happen.” and: “What’s taken place with us is rank. It stinks of the old boys’ network and them looking after their own.” John Haycock who was ripped off to the tune of $20000 stated: “I want to see a complete restructure. I think its essential that they have an independent body to handle complaints. Under the present system everything is slanted in the real estate agent’s favour.” Finally Chris Taylor of the real estate agent company The Joneses commended the proposal stating: “Tinkering with the current legislation as the Real Estate Institute had suggested was never going to solve the fundamental problems arising from real estate agents regulating themselves.” 
Maryan Street 
: What measures are proposed to reform the real estate industry? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: There will be a complete overhaul of the Real Estate Agents Act 1976 in order to deliver accountability— 
Hon Members 
: When? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —hold on I say to those members; help is on the way—transparency and openness within the sector and an independent and open complaints and disciplinary system. The freedom to self-regulate that is granted by current legislation is now perceived as industry protectionism rather than consumer protection. The overhaul will deal with licensing training complaints discipline and regulation of real estate activity including whether compulsory membership of the real estate agents institute is appropriate whether all facets of licensing should be independent of the industry and whether the industry itself should fund the reforms rather than the taxpayer. To answer the members’ question a paper setting out the detailed proposal for reform will be released in May.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8526] 
2.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What changes were made to the minimum wage last Sunday? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased that last Sunday the adult minimum wage had its biggest increase since 1999 from $10.25 to $11.25 an hour. The youth rate increased from $8.20 to $9 an hour. This change effectively gives 109100 workers a pay rise. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has she seen any reports on changes to the minimum wage? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. I have seen a report that notes that the Labour-led Government has raised the minimum wage each and every year it has been in office from $7 an hour in 1999 to $11.25 this year—a total rise of $4.25 an hour or 61 percent. This result stands in stark contrast to the last National Government which over 9 years raised the minimum wage by less than $1 an hour or 14 percent. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister able to assure the House that by this time next year the minimum wage will have increased a further 35c which is a mere 3.1 percent to make $12 per hour as stipulated in the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First; if not will she tell the House how the minimum wage will reach $12 per hour before the end of 2008? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If the minimum wage was to rise by only 35c an hour that would be in breach of the accord we have with both New Zealand First and the Green Party. We are aiming to increase the adult minimum wage by 75c an hour next year which will take it to $12 an hour. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has she seen any other reports on other changes to the minimum wage? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. I am pleased to say that I have seen supportive statements from different sectors including health care providers the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions New Zealand First the Greens and the Progressive party. However I seem to be missing one—from a so-called supporter of raising the minimum wage who again confirms the surveyed opinion of a growing number of New Zealanders that he is simply more style than substance. That person is John Key.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8525] 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Health; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
John Key 
: Does she believe that the Minister of Health exercised the appropriate level of oversight when the Auckland district health boards negotiated the contract for pathology services with Labtests Auckland; if so does she therefore think that sole responsibility for any alleged wrongdoing could rest only with those who in fact signed the contract in particular Wayne Brown and Ross Keenan? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes and yes. 
John Key 
: Does she agreed with the Minister of Health that the appropriate time for the Government to determine accountability of this mess was after the interim contract was signed with Diagnostic Medlab last week in which case will she today express confidence or otherwise in Wayne Brown and Ross Keenan? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No because “after” has a while to run. 
John Key 
: Why does she still have confidence in a Minister of Health who did not act against Government-appointed officials who signed a contract with someone who was—to use her words—“duplicitous” and had “a blatant conflict of interest” but now wants to act against the same officials or the same individuals before the Crown can even determine whether an appeal will be lodged? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Because the extent of that Tory friend’s duplicity has only become visible with the court judgment. 
John Key 
: Has it not dawned on the Prime Minister that by delaying any statement of confidence in the Auckland district health boards until after the appeal process has played out she is practically inviting those directors to lodge an appeal in order to save their jobs for at least a year if not more? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No nor do I intend to cut across appeal rights. 
John Key 
: Has she as Prime Minister or has her Minister of Health sought or received legal advice on sacking the directors of the Auckland district health boards? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is premature. Obviously the Government proceeds carefully. There is an appeal period yet to expire. What is being explored is the full range of options; and the full range of course goes from expressing confidence to people going. 
John Key 
: If the conflict of interest that Dr Bierre had was “blatantly obvious” as she said last week why does she need to wait any longer before she expresses confidence or otherwise in those who signed the flawed contract with Dr Bierre? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would have thought it was blatantly obvious which is why I am rather well disposed towards the court judgment but I am aware there is an appeal period yet to expire.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Co-operative Republic of Guyana—Minister of Amerindian Affairs 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Co-operative Republic of Guyana—Minister of Amerindian Affairs 
[Volume:638;Page:8525] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Mrs Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett Minister of Amerindian Affairs of the National Assembly of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that she be welcomed.
Visitors — Co-operative Republic of Guyana—Minister of Amerindian Affairs 
Visitors — Co-operative Republic of Guyana—Minister of Amerindian Affairs 
[Volume:638;Page:8525] 
Tuesday 3 April 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Co-operative Republic of Guyana—Minister of Amerindian Affairs 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Mrs Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett Minister of Amerindian Affairs of the National Assembly of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that she be welcomed.
Benson-Pope David: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8690] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am delighted to have the opportunity to rise however briefly in support of Part 2. In the wider context of this legislation I think it is clear that everyone in the Committee supports the bill. It is delightful to see that we have such unanimity which is so unusual. But it is unanimity around an issue that is so important in terms of the human rights of New Zealanders. However I must observe that in terms of the industrial legislative framework one cannot escape the delicious irony that in respect of this provision there is a degree of inconsistency on the opposing benches in relation to the funding agents. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill with amendment and progress on the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted.