edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11592] 
9.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: How does the introduction of a good-faith fine of up to $10000 on employers as proposed in the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill help achieve his stated purpose of the bill “to build productive employment relationships in the workplace”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The bill does not propose a good-faith fine for employers alone. It proposes a maximum fine of up to $10000 for any employer or union that engages in serious and sustained breaches of good faith. Providing penalties for serious bad-faith behaviour is entirely consistent with the bill’s purpose to build productive employment relationships in the workplace. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: What specific behaviour by employers between the passing of the Employment Relations Act in 2000 and now has made it necessary to introduce such a tough punitive regime against employers? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As the member might know the ability for unions and employers to engage in good-faith bargaining has been by and large very successful. However there have been reports of bad-faith bargaining. The idea of this clause in the legislation is to attempt to do something about that. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Minister may not have heard the beginning of the question which was: “What specific behaviour by employers …”. I thought he was coming to that with his answer. He did not get to that. He is nodding that he did not hear that. Perhaps he would like to— 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: What I did say was that there had been reports of bad-faith bargaining and I went on to explain why that was. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Does the Minister envisage a large number of fines for serious and sustained breaches of good faith? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. Surveys have shown that most employers employees and unions understand the value of good-faith bargaining in trying to build productive employment relationships in the workplace. As with most legislation maximum penalties are always reserved for the worst offending. In this case the penalties are for serious and sustained breaches only. Those cases are likely to be very rare indeed. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Why have the threat of a $10000 fine hanging over employers’ heads if the Minister cannot give the House a specific example of why it is needed and if in response to a question from his own side he said he does not envisage it being used very often? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There are lots of legislation in this House that reserve penalties for the worst-case scenario. What I did say was that the chances of this penalty being used are rare but it is important that where there are sustained and long-term breaches of good faith there be some ability to do something about it.
Hunt Jonathan: Voting — Correction 
Hunt Jonathan: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:617;Page:13165] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave was given for the ACT vote on the second reading of the Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill to be amended from 7 votes against to 6 votes against. The amended result of the vote is Ayes 30 Noes 80.
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16024] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Urgent Debates Declined — Deed of Settlement—Ngati Awa 
Urgent Debates Declined — Deed of Settlement—Ngati Awa 
[Volume:607;Page:4503] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Deed of Settlement—Ngati Awa 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Stephen Franks seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 a deed of settlement signed by the Crown and Ngati Awa. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but as the member acknowledges in his letter the deed of settlement will require legislation for its implementation. The House will therefore have plenty of opportunity to consider its implications while passing the legislation. I see no reason for the House to set aside its business for an urgent debate on the deed today.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8425] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 8. 
Bill read a third time.
Hunt Jonathan: Voting — Correction 
Hunt Jonathan: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:618;Page:14293] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When the House was in Committee on the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill the result of the vote on Marc Alexander’s proposed amendment to clause 10 to omit and substitute proposed section 107A(b) was incorrectly announced. The correct result is Ayes 35 Noes 84.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Parliamentary Accountability—Ministerial Statements 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Parliamentary Accountability—Ministerial Statements 
[Volume:627;Page:21917] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to set aside time now for an extended debate on the release from the Government of the report relating to race-based programmes put out by the Hon Trevor Mallard today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Power Simon: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy 
Power Simon: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy 
[Volume:620;Page:15866] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I would contend that this is the proper place to bring this issue up in accordance with Speaker’s ruling 149/4(1). To add to Mr Hide’s concerns can I say that I know that three senior members of the National Party have raised in recent weeks issues around answers to written questions. Answers include such examples as: “The department does not hold this information in the form requested.” “Data matching would provide only a snapshot.” “Information is available from annual reports.” and “Collating information would require a significant resource and management of data which I am unwilling to make.” To support Mr Hide I say that the question is really that those are not isolated one-off examples. What avenues beyond a letter to you on specific examples are available to parties on this side of the House to deal with this wider trend? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Whenever I have been approached by any member in writing I have taken the matter up immediately. I think members who have done so will recognise that. Mr Hide says that he will write to me. I will wait for his letter. What the library was told by a department is not a matter for me. I point out that there are over 20000 written questions per year. I can remember that when I first came to the House there were about 500 or 600—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! Not while I am on my feet! Neither interjection was appropriate. Since the score was one all I will ignore them. It is inevitable that not all questions will be satisfactorily answered but I say to members that if they write to me I guarantee to look at the matter immediately because I believe that answers should be given where appropriate in the proper form.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4970] 
10.  
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Senior Citizens 
: What is the Government doing to improve the security of older people in residential care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 Last week I had pleasure in announcing that the Government will progressively remove asset testing of older people in long-term residential care. It will mean that single people for example will be able to keep up to $150000 in assets before their assets are used to contribute to the cost of their care. That is 10 times the current threshold. 
Darren Hughes 
: What funding is the Government committing to remove the asset testing from people in residential care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Government will be spending over $100 million in year 1. That is over $100 million more than National was prepared to spend because in 1998 Bill English reneged on an election promise to remove asset testing and then in the lead-up to the 2002 election he said he had no plans to change that action. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is bringing the Opposition into the answer and there is no necessity for her to do so. She can answer the question and she should stick to the facts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say that I have been here for 37 years and if politics were not brought into answers I do not know whether we would ever have a question time. In this case I thought that the Minister’s comments were bringing the other party into the answer but there is a chance for further supplementary questions. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Why is the Minister continuing to claim that the Government is removing asset testing when in fact nothing is to happen until the year 2005 and even then the asset threshold is to be raised merely by a fraction year by year? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The statements I have made in relation to the Government’s decision accurately reflect our action. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What is the Government doing to improve the security of older people who are now unable to go into residential care because of the Government’s failure to remove asset testing as it promised to do in the last two elections. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Unlike that member’s party that refused to implement even its coalition agreement promise we have said that by 1 July 2005 we will begin the removal of asset testing.
Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:609;Page:6946] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8729] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 139 in the name of Paul Adams to add new subclause (3) to clause 77 be agreed to.
Voting — Point of Order—Maritime Security Bill 
Voting — Point of Order—Maritime Security Bill 
[Volume:611;Page:8620] 
Voting 
Point of Order—Maritime Security Bill 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that last night New Zealand First’s vote—and I think National’s and ACT’s—was recorded incorrectly as being against sending the Maritime Security Bill to the select committee. We are most certainly in favour of that and I seek leave to have our vote reversed. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 It is the same for National. We voted 27 in favour of the bill being referred to the select committee. We also seek leave that the vote be changed and accurately recorded. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will get the list but I am advised by the Clerk that that apparently was not the case. But certainly I will get the list and there is a perfect right to have that changed.
Mahuta Nanaia: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14017] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Address to Her Excellency the Governor-General—Presentation 
Hunt Jonathan: Address to Her Excellency the Governor-General—Presentation 
[Volume:617;Page:13212] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members accompanied by the mover and the seconder and other members of the House I will present this address to Her Excellency the Governor-General this evening in the Banquet Hall.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16516] 
2.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she accept the Hon John Tamihere at his word given that he took a golden handshake that he said he would not take; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 In Mr Tamihere’s statement to the House today he has said that he accepted an ex gratia payment when he said he would not accept one. He further said he regretted not advising me of that and I regret that too as my advice would have been not to accept it. Mr Tamihere has resigned from Cabinet today and I accept that as an honourable course of action. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of the Prime Minister’s response what has changed since yesterday when she promised this House due process for Mr Tamihere and today when she accepted his resignation? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not going to warn people about interjecting or making noises while questions are being asked. Questions are entitled to be heard in silence. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I told the House yesterday there is a process in train—and it still is in train—to have a report on a range of allegations many of them mounted by the member concerning Mr Tamihere. That process is going on. Mr Tamihere meantime has decided he will resign. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why would anybody accept Mr Tamihere at his word given the revelation that he took a golden handshake when he said he would not take one and his admission on page 28 of his book that one thing he was good at was “telling stories some of them less than truthful.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: A member’s word in this House is accepted. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does she intend to ask Mr Tamihere to apologise for saying that my allegation that a golden handshake and a vehicle were going to be settled upon him was a lie? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Apart from what I have said today I intend to wait for Mr White to determine the full facts around the payment. At that point it is a matter for Mr Tamihere to judge how he will react. 
Heather Roy 
: In light of the Prime Minister’s answer to the primary question at what time did she receive John Tamihere’s resignation and at what time did she accept it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not travelling with a stopwatch. I received the resignation sometime around 11.30 this morning and I accepted it to pass on to the Governor-General who of course must be the person who acts on my advice. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she believe that Mr John Tamihere should apologise to the people of New Zealand for saying he would not take a golden handshake and then taking one? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is for Mr Tamihere but I myself would have thought that the honour with which he acted today would be seen as precisely an apology. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has she sought from Mr John Tamihere a full explanation of all the allegations against him and full disclosure; if she has not done that why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Establishing that is the entire point of the White inquiry.
Robson Matt: Motions — Jewish Graves and Chapel Wellington—Vandalism 
Robson Matt: Motions — Jewish Graves and Chapel Wellington—Vandalism 
[Volume:619;Page:14717] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The Progressive Party strongly supports this motion against intimidation hate and bullying which was first suggested to the House by the Minister next to me Chris Carter. We thank him for bringing up this matter. 
The attacks committed against the Wellington Jewish Community over the past months are an affront to every community and everyone in New Zealand. They are attacks on democracy. The use of the swastika in the attacks was particularly reprehensible. Under Hitler the death of more than 6 million Jews of Slavs gypsies gay people immigrants refugees and communists was an attack on all human beings and was raised to the level of a perverted science. 
August Bebel a German Socialist leader before the First World War called anti-Semitism the philosophy of fools. By that he meant that those who fell for it were people who would go to war against other human beings. When the Roman slave Spartacus was killed those who stood with him refused to be divided and said that they were all Spartacus. I believe that at a time like this when the Parliament stands united in solidarity against the hateful bullies and racists who attack any part of a united community like Spartacus we are saying that when there is an attack like this on people whether they are Jews Palestinians immigrants refugees or people who in some way are different from ourselves we will not be disconnected from our common humanity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As Speaker I shall take the unusual course of making my own personal comment on this. In all the 37½ years I have been in Parliament this for me has been one of the most shocking incidents I have ever noted in this country. When this motion is passed I intend to send the motion and all the contributions made this afternoon to the Speaker of the Knesset in Israel. 
Motion agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Motions — Speaker—No Confidence 
Hunt Jonathan: Motions — Speaker—No Confidence 
[Volume:620;Page:15736] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can put down a notice of motion and there are no special rules for notices of motion lodged by the leader of New Zealand First. Notices are lodged between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on any sitting day; I refer to Standing Order 94(1). The member’s notice was lodged between those times this morning. If the notice is in order it is placed on the Table when the House meets—as this one has been. It is then set down as a Government or member’s order of the day in accordance with Standing Order 95. This notice as it comes from a member who is not a Minister will be set down as a member’s order of the day for the next day on which the House sits which is Tuesday 5 October and it will appear on the Order Paper for that day. It will be deleted from the Order Paper 1 week after its first appearance—that is it will appear on the Order Papers for 5 6 and 7 October and will be omitted from the Order Paper for Tuesday 12 October.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15628] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 17 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:619;Page:15093] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Could the Leader of the House indicate whether during the remaining 3 weeks of this 4-week session he intends to attempt to move the House into urgency for any matter?
Ririnui Mita: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21882] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I stand to take a brief call in response to one concern that I am aware of in relation to this part of the bill and that is the rights or recognition of whangai or legally adopted children. There was considerable discussion amongst the members of the Maori Affairs Committee about the inclusion of legally adopted children. To some degree the representatives of Nga Rauru Kitahi were also concerned but after a discussion at the select committee we were able to point out to the representatives that the inclusion of whangai or legally adopted children in this bill was in accordance with the Adoption Act 1955 in accordance with previous settlement Acts and in accordance with the rights of adopted children under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. So there is a long stream of consistency in reference to whangai or legally adopted children. 
The other thing we discussed with the representatives was the actual nature of their concern. Their concern surrounded the adoption of non-Maori children by and large but if we concentrate the issue on non-Maori children then basically we also catch Maori children in the net because in many cases a lot of the adopted children are Maori and non-Maori. We asked the representatives of Nga Rauru Kitahi what the process would be in the case of Maori children who have been adopted into certain families to determine whether they had the whakapapa. We asked whether they would be required to submit their whakapapa to the trustees to receive benefits or whether there was some other way of determining whether they were of blood line. To be quite honest they were not able to answer that question because there is no way of making that declaration. Many families adopt children and by and large they keep that information to themselves. They do not wish to have to account for their decision to adopt children. So it became a much more difficult issue to resolve in terms of their position and it was understandable that the decision was made in relation to consistency with the Adoption Act. I understand from the representatives and from the discussions I have had with them since the select committee process in Wanganui that they have accepted that situation.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16357] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4400] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 61 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 24A be agreed to.
Vote: Responsible Gambling Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Responsible Gambling Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7874] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Responsible Gambling Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4965] 
6.  
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on the status of school staffing at the beginning of this year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Ministry of Education’s staffing survey shows that nearly 43 percent of secondary schools and 11 percent of primary schools began the year with vacancies. The increase is consistent with predicted roll growth and in the secondary sector is partly due to the increased number of teaching positions in schools this year as a result of changes announced in the Budget last year. The situation is exacerbated by the need for around 750 teachers to teach more than 10000 foreign fee-paying students currently in secondary schools. The survey shows however that the schools managed the vacancies mainly by employing trained relief staff. 
Mark Peck 
: What steps has the Government taken to address secondary teacher supply? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We have taken a comprehensive range of initiatives some of which were already in place and some of which are to be announced. We are targeting subjects where shortages of teachers have been identified for training allowances worth up to $10000 each. They are for maths physics chemistry te reo Maori and information technology. We have conversion courses to enable primary teachers with degree qualifications to get full pay while they train to teach in secondary schools and so far 50 New Zealand – trained secondary teachers have received $5000 to come back from overseas. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister claim that the Government is managing the issue when there are schools like Rangitahi College that now at the end of term 1 have no head of department science no head of department mathematics no head of department Maori no head of department physical education and no head of department technology and despite the Minister knowing about the situation at that school over a month ago why has he done absolutely nothing to fix it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: One of the problems that occurs when this House makes a decision to put 373 extra secondary teachers into schools is that they tend to get sucked into the more popular schools and some of the outlying low-decile and rural schools have their shortages exacerbated. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Would the Minister tell the headmaster of a popular single-sex Auckland school who told the select committee this morning that for a recent position at his school 60 people applied 57 of whom had Third World - nation qualifications that everything is hunky-dory in the area of teacher supply? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Certainly not. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from Rangitahi College pointing out that there are six departments in which they have no— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:607;Page:4269] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise a serious question on which I would like a considered ruling in respect of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) which is to be dealt with as the first matter of business following question time. Your key function in Parliament is the protection of the rights of members and of the Opposition. 
My concern is that we have a bill that by its terms is “virtually identical to the Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (313-2)”. The same explanatory note states: “This new Bill is required to make sure the passage of the amendments through the House is as efficient as possible.”—that is the Government does not wish to have the original bill with 18 parts which has been before the House for over 3 years but prefers a new bill that has about 18 subparts. That seems to me just a technique for the Government to avoid proper scrutiny of a bill. It seems to me that a long-established principle of Parliament is that we cannot have two identical motions. If a member moves one motion another member cannot move an identical motion. What we effectively have on the Order Paper now is two items on the agenda of the House that are identical. By the Government’s own words they are identical. If we are to allow the parliamentary process to be subverted in this way we might as well have Saddam Hussein as our President.
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9020] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With respect— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled on that matter. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I appreciate that but is that what the Minister wants? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sure that is what the Minister wants. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Should we not inquire of her? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister indicated that was what she wanted and I will do that. Can I now have the vote? 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 151 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to Part 1 be agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hartley Ann: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17616] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next question is an amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly. The amendment is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 311 to omit and substitute subclauses (1) and (2) of clause 2. The amendment relates to a referendum to be held with the 2005 general election. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 311 in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 2 be agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8298] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to the schedule my excellent colleague the Hon Murray McCully has just pointed out to the Committee what is provided for in clause 12 where it describes what this Residence Review Board is. The schedule right the way through the principal Act replaces “Residence Appeal Authority” with “Residence Review Board. It is extraordinary that new section 18B(1) in clause 12 states: “For the purposes of this Act there is a board call the Residence Review Board. The board is the same body as the Residence Appeal Authority”. Some people might say: “Aha! Hang on! While it might be the same body maybe the Government intends to change the membership and maybe it will be a different body.” Oh no! That is not the case at all. If members look at clause 12 they will see that a little bit has been stuck in under subclause (4). I understand that new paragraph (c) was put in at the request of the Residence Appeal Authority.
Pettis Jill: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5328] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. I support it for a number of reasons one of which is the greater flexibility that the bill will allow in the Resource Management Act process. One of the positive benefits is that local authorities will be able to delegate to their employees the power to decide resource consent applications. Currently they can delegate this power only to a hearings commissioner. This bill will allow greater flexibility better response times and more surety and certainty for people who need to access the Resource Management Act processes. I support the bill and I look forward to its rapid passage through the House.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22147] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Biosecurity - Agriculture and Forestry be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 18 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 5. 
Vote Biosecurity - Agriculture and Forestry agreed to.
Carter John: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Carter John: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10326] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 The National Party is opposed to this legislation. We are opposed because of its intention. Some of our previous speakers have already spoken about the fact that it smacks of Government interference. One of the things that have been good about Radio New Zealand is that it has generally been a non-political organisation. I have to say there has been the odd occasion when there has been a suggestion that there may have been some political involvement. But in the main it has been fair to say that Radio New Zealand has endeavoured to conduct itself in a non-political way and has represented the views of its listeners and New Zealand generally. But what we are worried about is the way in which this bill now changes the charter and possibly allows for some political direction. If that were to be an outcome of this legislation it would be a sad and a bad thing. 
One of the neat things about this democracy and this country is that—while obviously here in Parliament we play politics because that is what we do—bureaucracy generally is apolitical although I have some worries about that as well. It certainly implements policy that is set down by the Government of the day and so it should because that is its role but to a large degree—although as I say there is some suggestion that that is changing a little—the bureaucracy has been apolitical. 
While one can poke the finger at some of the media from time to time in the main it is fair to say that the media tries to be balanced. Mr Assistant Speaker from time to time you and I and others in this Parliament may well have a different point of view on some of the utterances that we read and see and some of the television shots that are taken but in the main there is a degree of fairness. Certainly the media would suggest that it tries to be fair. 
We are worried that the way in which this bill introduces things such as spiritual and ethical needs leads one to wonder exactly what that means and whether that allows an avenue for a Government or in particular a Minister to have some political direction through the board and to the manager of Radio New Zealand. If that were to be an outcome I think it would be a sad day for us. It is not the sort of thing that we want to see in our country quite honestly. We need to have the media giving the public an unbiased view so that the public can make a rational decision. That has been the strength of our democracy. Indeed it is one of the reasons that New Zealand is such a free place and our country—as the Speaker of our House said tonight at a function—has a very proud and honourable record of not having any corruption within our Parliament within our ministries and amongst our Ministers. There has been no history of it and long may that remain. 
We need to take care when we are working through legislation such as this that we do not end up causing the thin end of the wedge to start as a consequence of political involvement in things where the Government does not need to be.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Malaysia 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Malaysia 
[Volume:615;Page:10861] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Datuk Dr Jamaluddin bin Jarjis Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Malaysia accompanied by the Minister of Consumer Affairs is within the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Hon Datuk Dr Jamaluddin bin Jarjis accompanied by the Minister of Consumer Affairs entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8167] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to omit clauses 194 195 and 196 be agreed to.
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:10069] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the decisions that were made and made public following that same said meeting. 
Documents not tabled.
Ward Mike: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Ward Mike: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6649] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 Whenever members oppose a tax or a levy that is as specific as this one the message I take from it is that they are opposed either to the thing that the levy will fund or to paying for their share of it. So let us look at the implications of the Opposition’s stance on this bill. The bill formalises the collection of a levy on petrol to meet the costs arising from New Zealanders being injured in road crashes. Are the bill’s opponents saying that they are quite comfortable with the notion of leaving people in their communities who are suffering from the consequences of a traffic accident—and perhaps an accident that occurred through no fault of their own—through which they may have been brain damaged paralysed or otherwise injured to such an extent that they can no longer care for their families? 
Even with accident compensation life after an accident is difficult. Without accident compensation the difficulties become tragic. The consequences are not about tax or accident compensation; they are about poverty with all its implications—the rent or the mortgage that does not get paid the children whose school fees cannot be paid and the children who are not fed as well as they might be. Are the opponents of the bill saying that they support the accident compensation concept but that funding for it should come out of a different bundle of money—that somebody else should pay? Coming from an Opposition that stoutly defends user-pays in other areas I find that stance a tad inconsistent. 
The Greens support this bill and are pleased that it includes the provision for levying diesel. Although we understand that the levy on registration is sufficient to cover the levy on diesel vehicles if it were paid on the fuel it would not be the same levy for a diesel-powered museum piece that gets driven slowly and rarely on rallies as for a diesel-powered workhorse or a “bull bar shopping basket.” We will be happier when the accident compensation component is levied on all fuels—when registration is made more affordable and a few cents per litre are added to fuels as an disincentive to those who might otherwise use their cars frivolously. 
Much has been said about injury prevention. Prevention is not a major component of this bill but if we are serious about prevention then we should look at the volume of traffic on our roads—the number of people who climb into their cars needlessly and the number of people who choose to live many many miles from where they work play and send their children to school. We should reduce the volume of cars on the road; it is a major component in traffic accidents. 
The Greens support this bill. Its intentions are good and it has our full support.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15660] 
6.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What action is the Government taking to stop overseas drug syndicates from trafficking illicit drugs into New Zealand? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 In the 2003 Budget the Government injected $1.9 million for the recruitment and training of additional specialist drug intelligence and investigation staff of the Customs Service. This funding was to strengthen the service’s ability to identify and investigate overseas-based syndicates trafficking illegal drugs into New Zealand. The Government has backed this up with a further $5 million in the 2004 Budget to increase the service’s inspection and detection resources at international airports and seaports. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has this additional funding had a positive result and is the Government sending the right messages to the international drug community? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes it has. I have received reports from the Customs Service that show that in the last financial year the service seized more than 178000 Ecstasy tablets; 22 kilos of cocaine compared with 0.2 kilos the year before; 10 kilos of crystal methamphetamine compared with 0.9 kilos the years before; 1.2 kilos of heroin compared with 0.2 kilos the year before; 6000 LSD tablets; and 1.3 million ephedrine and pseudoephedrine tablets which was more than double the amount seized the year before. In addition 30 arrests have been made in New Zealand and overseas as a result of the increased cooperation with overseas agencies. The message to international drug traffickers is clear: their chances of being caught in New Zealand have gone up dramatically. 
Pita Paraone 
: Has he any concerns over the running and the effectiveness of the Customs Service coast watch programme especially pertaining to matters of privacy; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Not at this stage no.
Brownlee Gerry: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22216] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Notwithstanding Speaker’s ruling 25/4 which you quoted you have an opportunity here to make a bit of a mark and perhaps make your own ruling in this matter. I know that sounds like a rash thing to do on the last day that Parliament sits officially—although today rolls on into tomorrow in one of the vagaries of the parliamentary system—but here is an opportunity for H V Ross Robertson MP for Papatoetoe to be noted in  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is questioning my ruling. I have made the ruling. I am not creating a new precedent; I am following Speaker’s ruling 25/4. I call the honourable member Paul Adams.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20437] 
1. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received about trends in the number of working-age New Zealanders on benefits? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The latest quarterly benefit figures show that the number of working-age New Zealanders on the unemployment benefit has dropped by a record 27 percent in 1 year. The number of sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit has fallen below 100000 for the first time since 1995. The overall number of working-age New Zealanders on a benefit is down to 293000 which is 21 percent fewer than in 1999 and for the first time in 16 years the figure has fallen below 300000. Thousands of people are now moving back into work and achieving financial independence for their families. This huge drop in the number of working-age people on a benefit means that taxpayers have saved $1.2 billion since 1999. 
Georgina Beyer 
: To the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will be heard in silence as she asks her question. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What Government initiatives have contributed to this excellent result? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can understand the hubbub of excitement in the House today so I will say that we are moving through seasonal-worker strategies investment in Student Job Search job partnerships with industry personal development plans for people on the domestic purposes benefit and the Pacific Wave strategy that has dropped Pacific unemployment by 50 percent since 1999 and we are now focusing on areas like the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit. Yes I can understand how excited MPs are about this matter. 
Sue Bradford 
: What specific measures is the Government taking to improve the situation for people particularly those in the 50 to 65-year-old age group who are not in work and who want to work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The main change worth mentioning is that people who are in that older-age mature group have been work tested and as a result of that all the services of Work and Income have been made available to them. So we are seeing the number of those people going into work increasing steadily. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister confirm that as at 31 March there was a total of 116075 people on invalids and sickness benefits which is more than double the number on the unemployment benefit; if so is he confident that the pilot programmes he established last year such as Providing Access to Health Solutions and ProCare will prove effective in reducing those numbers? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I can confirm those numbers; and yes I confirm confidence in those programmes.
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20953] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 9 be agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6288] 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13 ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:621;Page:16593] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We will proceed to that when we are ready to do so—that is when we have completed discussions with my own colleagues and with New Zealand First in particular. Should National members wish to become supportive and positive I am sure I will be happy to have discussions with them as well. I expect that the second reading will be not too far in the distance. The pace at which the bill will be taken will depend upon the speed with which closure motions are accepted during the Committee stage by the Chairs of the Committee.
Field Taito Phillip: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15618] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Simich Clem: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
Simich Clem: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15507] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I agree with that. But for the Green Party’s “No” vote the motion would have been agreed to and that would have been the end of the matter. We can be grateful in many ways for the “No” vote. Does any member call for a personal vote? That is fine we shall have a personal vote on this issue.