edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Sowry Roger: Commissioner for Children Bill — Second Reading 
Sowry Roger: Commissioner for Children Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9784] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 That was an interesting speech from Chris Carter about the Families Commission. Unfortunately for the Minister this is the Commissioner for Children Bill but let us not devalue his contribution. 
This bill is finally back in the House. I say to Mr Maharey that I think he has been an absolute and total failure in that he brought in a piece of legislation on 10 October 2001—over 2 years ago. The select committee heard 13 submissions sat for 2 hours and reported back to the House and it has taken Mr Maharey 2 years to get this bill back before Parliament. It came back only when he was relieved of responsibility for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. 
Mr Maharey has failed children in this country and he knows it. It is a tragedy that Jackie Pivac is wearing all the responsibility for the dysfunctional department that let Coral Burrows slip through the net. The Minister sits there puffed up in his own importance having taken 2 years to do this and he is not responsible for anything. He is laughing. He is not responsible. His chief executive resigned and Mr Maharey is not taking any responsibility at all. 
I do not know how Mr Maharey as a Minister can sleep at night knowing what has gone on in that department for the last 2 years. He may find it funny but he failed the young children of this country. He failed some individual children in this country. Mr Maharey may think it is funny but those families do not. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Maharey’s interjection was that more children died before he was the Minister. I say to the Minister to get real. 
Debate interrupted.
Turia Tariana: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
Turia Tariana: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
[Volume:617;Page:12540] 
TARIANA TURIA (Labour—Te Tai Hauauru) 
: 
 One vote opposed.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Speaker's Ruling Demonstrations—Access to Buildings 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Speaker's Ruling Demonstrations—Access to Buildings 
[Volume:627;Page:21898] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that. I have been following the Speaker’s ruling of 27 July 1999. It states that any deputation waiting on a Minister or member after a demonstration is limited to six. So that is the approach I have been taking so far. But I am of course very happy to reconsider that ruling. If members wish to make a contribution to that consideration I ask them to put it in writing or to make an appointment to see me.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:620;Page:15735] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment period. When the House resumes on Tuesday 5 October priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill to the second readings of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill and the Holidays Amendment Bill and to the first readings of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) and the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill. Members’ days will be in the first and third weeks of the next session.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14171] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 93 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 26 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 4; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4824] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am sorry I missed the debate before lunch but I say that members have raised with me over lunch an issue surrounding this bill—an issue that has been alluded to by Mr Hide. I think the issue is a serious one that we do need to think about. It relates to the chairperson being able to remove a presiding officer because of issues of personal circumstances. The powers that exist in the bill are judicially reviewable but they are judicially reviewable on the basis of a subjective test because the removal occurs on the basis of the opinion of the chairperson. As members will be aware a subjective test in that sort of case is quite difficult to apply and it is difficult to overturn the decision made by the chairperson. In effect one has to show that the decision made by the chairperson was totally unreasonable and not one that any reasonable person could have arrived at taking all the circumstances into account. 
The amendment proposed by Mr Franks gets us into another difficulty. If the consent of the presiding officer is required then ironically it seems to me that the worst kind of circumstances could emerge. Very clearly if somebody who should be stood down from a case in relation to his or her personal circumstances—they might include a conflict of interest or other personal circumstances—refuses to go and sits on the claim that will then raise further doubts in the future about the validity of the decision that has been arrived at by the tribunal. The simple solution—and a Government amendment will be moved—is to simply remove from paragraph (c) of section 5AC(2) in clause 5 the words “in the opinion of the Chairperson”. That then means that if the power to remove the presiding officer is exercised by the chairperson and that decision is judicially reviewed it is judicially reviewed on the basis of an objective test. In other words it is judicially reviewed on the basis that reasonable tests have been applied about the nature of those personal circumstances. It cannot be exercised on the basis of whim if one likes by the chairperson—on the basis of a form of personal antipathy. 
I think that amendment deals much better with the most likely kind of circumstances than does the amendment proposed by Mr Franks which ironically is most likely to fail in the circumstance in which it is most needed in terms of removing a person as the presiding officer over a claim. If Mr Franks thinks that through he may come to that view. I have consulted parliamentary counsel on this matter. I understand that the Maori Affairs Committee at one stage did think of removing those words and of making the test an objective one. In my view it will be better to do so in order to make it clear that the chairperson does not have the power to operate that capacity in a way that might be seen as arbitrary and unfair.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5546] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is helpful to take a few moments now because you heard a view from the National Party and now you are hearing from United Future that there is concern that the Clerk’s Office is actually preventing this House from asking reasonable questions. I say to you that if we cannot ask what the Government’s attitude is towards democracy in Tonga it would follow that we cannot ask for example what the Government thinks about developments in the EC on trade or what is going on in Iraq. They are all matters that must come under the purview of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and I would have thought of the Prime Minister. They are all matters of Government policy and attitude and when you are doing this review I think you should be saying to the Clerks that the rule should be that when in doubt allow the question rather than the other way around. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that the member has made a very valid couple of points and I certainly have some sympathy with the points he is making particularly with the second one.
Ogilvy Bernie: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11809] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 United Future supports the third reading of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. Firstly I thank the Minister for at least attempting to answer the questions that were posed to her yesterday and last night and I certainly thank her for her explanations in trying to sort out the numbers game. As another member has pointed out even those numbers do not quite add up but at least the difference has shrunk considerably. At least I am grateful that I am informed to that extent. I certainly want to put on record my thanks for the great work the chairperson did in corralling us under these circumstances and listening intently to the submitters who had a wide range of views and keeping us as fellow committee members working steadily through the process. 
As the Minister has pointed out and as everybody should be aware this bill is designed to get hold of the 70000 or so notified toxic substances that remain outside the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act of 1996 include them finally get them classified correctly and therefore deal with health problems that possibly would occur if this did not happen as well as environmental issues that could also get out of hand. The bill will also allow for a commercial balance and expansion at the same time. 
The bill provides the mechanism for this to happen and will help to do that. I am very pleased that the bill provides cost savings through various mechanisms. We realise it has to go through in super-quick time and has to be fulfilled by June 2006. That is a pressure in itself. We also realise that the mechanisms explained in the bill are much more user-friendly as opposed to the substantive Act. 
I would like to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister that there are things that are still not complete. We have been told there will be further amendments. One of the areas that I find needs to have certainty about it is the international standards and what other blocs of nations are going to require in the future. So on that note I would like to reaffirm that United Future supports the third reading of this bill and would love to see it enacted so that all the bodies involved can get on with business and achieve their goals.
Visitors — Intelligence and Security Committee United Kingdom 
Visitors — Intelligence and Security Committee United Kingdom 
[Volume:612;Page:9035] 
Thursday 9 October 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Intelligence and Security Committee United Kingdom 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing honourable members that members of the Intelligence and Security Committee from the United Kingdom led by the Rt Hon Ann Taylor MP are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish they be welcomed.
Woolerton R Doug: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Woolerton R Doug: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17739] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 This reminds me of what happened in the Primary Production Committee when those members were rushing around trying to find evidence that something had gone on. Somebody had said something. I want to bring people’s attention to the fact that the purpose of Part 5 is to “provide a full and final settlement of Maori claims to commercial aquaculture”. [ 
Interruption 
] Well that does not actually matter very much because I understand that the Government has pre-empted claims. [ 
Interruption 
] Is that not so? That is what it looks like to me. I did not hear Government members get excited in the select committee. 
Hon David Carter 
: They never did any work. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Well I thought this was a Government bill. Somebody must have done some work somewhere. But let us not get carried away. The boys and girls are having so much fun getting excited about nothing. 
The fact is that 20 percent of the area has been set down to go to Maori interests. It is just 20 percent of an increased space in the ocean—not costed by anybody; it is just a little extra. It is not as though there is not enough ocean or anything like that or that it is being robbed off anybody or anything— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Don’t be naive. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I am not naive. What is naive here is to say that the 20 percent is coming off the present players or that it is coming out of somebody’s backyard. This is new space that we are talking about and there is plenty of ocean. I think that a perfectly sensible thing to do is to allocate a little more space at the beginning of the Act in order to make sure that things are tidied up early in the piece. But our friends in the National Party and in ACT cannot come to grips with something that forestalls a fight. They cannot come to grips with anything that staves off anger or anything like that. They want to have a fight and believe they have not won anything or done anything unless there is a fight. We in New Zealand First say that the Government of the day whose bill this is—it is not our bill—has decided to put that 20 percent in. It is a 20 percent allocation of freshwater space and we say we agree with that.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17083] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 43B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new subclause (2) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(2)The order takes precedence over the provisions of sections 6 and 7 and must be referred by the Maori Land Court to the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Minister of Conservation (the relevant Ministers).
Mallard Trevor: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14758] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Although I do not want to refer to the previous part I think it is fair to say that it was slightly more substantive than this part which is technical. The regulations that were gazetted in 2002 had an error in them: they did not have a clause to spell out the purposes of collecting the levy and what it would be spent on which was required by the Act. No one ever complained about that asked for their money back or said that we should stop spending the money but we thought it was worth putting some belts with the braces and making sure we had that tidied up. It is a very narrow technical validation.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20444] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Thank you. There is certainly a difference between misrepresenting and straight-out lying. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was an unnecessary implication and the member knows it. Would he please withdraw the comment about lying. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I withdraw the comment about lying and replace it with “being reckless with the truth”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a qualified withdrawal as the member knows. Would he please just make an unqualified withdrawal. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I withdraw. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I appreciate that.
Hartley Ann: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Hartley Ann: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13023] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendments to omit clauses 49 50 and 51 in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall are withdrawn. 
The question now is that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 52 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(4)Whenever a prisoner is transferred on the direction of the chief executive or an inspector of corrections for a period in excess of 7 days then the chief executive will advise the inmate’s victim(s) or families of the victim(s) if those latter parties have indicated they wish to be informed of the inmate’s movements and transfers in excess of 7 days.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21639] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendments not agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8776] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Our understanding is that there will be a 2-hour debate. If we look on the Order Paper today we see that the bill is set down for twelve 10-minute speeches which is 2 hours. We are comfortable to have— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Oh no! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I suggest that the senior Government whip should not interrupt when I am speaking. I am making a point here; I am trying to help the House. We are quite comfortable about having a second reading not having a Committee stage then going straight to a third reading without any debate if we can ensure that we actually get more than the three speeches that we would normally be allocated. Of course if we skip the Committee stage and the third reading then we will have only three 10-minute speeches. We would like the opportunity to have at least the six 10-minute speeches that we would have if there were a second reading and a third reading. We are looking to help the House. I am asking for your consideration on that matter.
Okeroa Mahara: General Debates 
Okeroa Mahara: General Debates 
[Volume:608;Page:5479] 
MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I want to start the debate and to continue the scene set by my colleague by asking the question: “What does a National Party do when it is out of power out of the loop outmanoeuvred and outperformed in the leadership stakes and in every other aspect of the political dynamic?”. What does it do? Irrespective of a lack of consultation with its Maori stakeholders it engages in seeking a headline—the best cheap-shot line-up especially a Maori one. 
That is a classic case of hypocrisy and may I say political schizophrenia. We are aware that the National Party vigorously courted the Maori vote in the last election and failed miserably. What happened? The National Party hit the delete button and its one and lonely Maori MP was demoted from eighth to thirteenth lackey. How embarrassing is that to Maoridom? That is sheer hypocrisy and schizophrenia. I want to put it in a colloquial term: she is “sweet as” one year. To be poetic: “Out out brief candle.” To put it in Maori: “Haere ra haere ra haere ra.” To wax poetic again: “The time has come the walrus said to speak of many things.” Bill English— 
Ron Mark 
: What have you been smoking? 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: I have been drinking. In May 2003 Bill English said that the Maori seats have fulfilled a purpose but their time is now over. What absolute and total cultural and social arrogance! It underlines a demonstrative ignorance of Maori dynamics in the 21st century. The intention to hold a referendum on Maori seats in the year 2008 is totally unimaginative and lacking in vision. To me it is the hammer and anvil approach. It is an ideology that wraps itself around the tyranny of the majority. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The hammer and sickle. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: No that is that member. Why should the pinnacle participation and aspiration of tangata whenua be determined by a process that oozes assimilation? [ 
Interruption 
] We saw it over there last night. He iwi kotahi tatou. That is a kind of Jurassic understanding of race relations in New Zealand. “He iwi kotahi tatou.” means “We are one people.” If that referendum gains traction—[ 
Interruption 
]—I will talk to that member from Ngati Raukawa later—if that policy gains traction we will have a herding together of the people irrespective of their diversity and their heritage. In other words we will go from assimilation to integration. Those two words are the bane of our people and have been for the last 160 years. 
When I say that it is a gross misinterpretation of Maori dynamics in the 21st century I note that even Maori party faithful of the National Party are expressing some grave doubts about that announcement. Let me quote Mr Wira Gardiner former Chief Executive of Te Puni Kokiri: “I feel a significant amount of unease about the failure to consult with the party. It was an absolutely wrong process. They should have at least consulted with Maori within the party itself. Nobody consulted me.” The leader of that party is trying to lead a debate on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Hughes Darren: General Debate 
Hughes Darren: General Debate 
[Volume:625;Page:20250] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may not have heard because you were calling my colleague Lynne Pillay but right at the tail end of Mr Hide’s contribution he made a most unparliamentary remark. I think he should be made to withdraw and apologise for that comment. He knows exactly what he said.
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12891] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment agreed to.
Beyer Georgina: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3818] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Kedgley Sue: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9071] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek leave to amend my vote. When the vote was taken on Part 3 I inadvertently said there were nine votes. In fact there were eight votes.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12522] 
5.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What changes has the Government announced to improve access to health care for older New Zealanders? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 From 1 July all New Zealanders aged 65 and over enrolled in any primary health organisation will be eligible for a significantly reduced prescription charge and low-cost health-care. An extra $47 million has been provided for this initiative on top of the $410 million that was first committed to the primary health-care strategy. 
Dave Hereora 
: When did those aged 65 and over last have this level of access to low-cost health-care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The last time that the Government subsidy for primary health-care was increased for older people was in September 1990. The subsidy was reduced in February 1991 under the previous National Government and in 1992 was removed altogether for all people including older people except for those with community services cards. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why does a person have to be enrolled in the Government’s ideological model for primary health-care delivery—that is the primary health organisation—to be able to access cheaper prescriptions and care; why can people not access cheaper care if they choose to go to a doctor who is not in a primary health organisation? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As the member will know until all New Zealanders are enrolled in primary health organisations they are still able to use the community services card. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that preventing the neglect and abuse of older New Zealanders must be a health-care priority; if so does she agree that the 105 audits of residential care-providers in the last 3 years as a result of abuse complaints such as one drunken manager who in response to a resident’s complaints about what proved to be a fatal ruptured bowel said: “Take a Panadol and don’t ring me again tonight until she’s dead.” demonstrate the need for this Government to finally get serious about elder abuse in New Zealand? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I absolutely share that member’s concern about the abuse of any older New Zealanders particularly the more vulnerable ones who are in residential care. I look forward to continuing to work with the United Future party in opposition to those sorts of practices.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20576] 
3.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to improve access to Government services for rural New Zealanders? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Heartland service centres have now been established in 30 locations across the country to help connect rural New Zealanders to Government services. This includes a Chatham Islands centre which opened in January this year. The centres provide a one-stop shop for a range of agencies including the Housing New Zealand Corporation the Inland Revenue Department the Accident Compensation Corporation Career Services the Maori Land Court and Work and Income. A customer satisfaction survey carried out by Colmar Brunton shows that 96 percent of the public are satisfied with the services they get when they visit a heartland service centre and 75 percent said that they were very satisfied. These results show that Heartland Services is delivering for rural New Zealanders and this is further evidence of the Government’s responsiveness to the needs of heartland New Zealand. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What else does the survey reveal about Heartland Services and does this reflect wider satisfaction with Government policies for rural communities? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think it does. Ninety-five percent of members of the public who have visited a centre believe that Heartland Services has improved their access to Government services and 89 percent of community organisations report satisfaction with Heartland Services. Yes these services build on rural-friendly initiatives such as Technology New Zealand scholarships for people who commit to teach in rural areas a rural locum support scheme and the rural practice support scheme in health and of course the swift action on floods in areas like the Manawatu-Rangitikei and the East Coast. 
Metiria Turei 
: How can the Minister possibly justify his crowing about being rural friendly when his Government has slashed rural schools so that country kids have to travel for over an hour each way each day just to get their free public education and when his Government has supported the Correspondence School board slashing staff and cutting critical education services to New Zealand’s rural children who have no other choice; how rural friendly is that? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Easily in the sense that I am just reporting on 30 heartland service centres right across the country that are restoring access to the Government services that were removed by the previous National Government. That is a fantastic policy that is well supported by New Zealanders throughout rural areas.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7897] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 On the issue of the so-called precedent effect members need to remind themselves that for this Parliament section 55(1)(b) and (c) has been suspended and the duty now on members is that they should not withdraw from their New Zealand citizenship—which they might have been able to do under the old section 55(1)(b) and (c). That is absolutely clear. It is equally clear that the Government and the Justice and Electoral Committee are expected to look at this issue in order to produce longer-term solutions around what is broadly acceptable and they will provide the law that will operate after this Parliament ceases. Therefore there is no present effect arising out of the interpretation of section 55(1)(b) and (c) as the provisions were in force up until Friday of last week. 
Further Mr Speaker you are being invited to do something that makes completely no sense at all. The undertaking you gave was an undertaking simply to listen to the advice of the Privileges Committee and the House. As you made it very clear that advice was not determinative—whatever it was. At the end of the day you would have had to determine whether a vacancy had occurred. You cannot now rule that a vacancy occurred because clearly one has not occurred. The law was changed retrospectively and no amount of continued— 
Opposition Members 
: Ha! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is no point in Opposition members being bad losers on this matter. The law was changed retrospectively. We have now debated that matter I think once twice three times four times five times six times in the House and no amount of further debate will change the outcome. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker—
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16922] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21415] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to add to subsection (1) of section 15B the following new paragraph: 
(c)are being produced without acceptable labour standards or in ways which detrimentally affect communities or the environment.
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7651] 
10.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What initiatives has the Government taken to mark Conservation Week? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 On Sunday I opened the latest major addition to our public conservation lands—4000 hectares of north Canterbury high country described in the Christchurch  
Press 
 as “a slice of heaven”. The purchase of this area has protected the habitat of threatened native wildlife and opened up this exciting area for public recreation. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What priority if any has been given during this week to the protection of New Zealand’s historic heritage? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Historic heritage is a theme of this year’s Conservation Week. My department and the Historic Places Trust are holding over 170 public events celebrating our historic heritage. The Department of Conservation is the custodian of more than 12000 heritage sites half of which are Maori archaeological sites. Extra funding in this year’s Budget will enable it to protect our heritage better and some of the key sites are being showcased this week. 
Shane Ardern 
: As it is Conservation Week is the Minister celebrating our continual growth in biosecurity by giving New Zealand residency to yet another alien invader such as the scoliid wasp—as was announced by his department today? If the Minister is concerned about that new intrusion what is he going to do about it; if he is not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can assure that member that as Minister of Conservation I am very concerned about biosecurity. The Department of Conservation works actively with the Ministry for the Environment the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and other agencies to address that question.
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21547] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 7; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20304] 
1. LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Labour 
: What changes is the Government making to paid parental leave? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted that the Government has recently decided to extend the paid parental leave scheme to self-employed new mothers giving them practical financial support and greater choice about when to return to paid work. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Has the Minister seen any responses to the announcement of the extension of the scheme to the self-employed; if so what do they say? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have seen a report from Judith Collins the National Party spokesperson on some issues of concern to women in which she said that she would much rather have had a tax cut than support paid parental leave when she was self-employed. To provide the equivalent amount of money that this Government is giving through paid parental leave would cost taxpayers $9.9 billion a year. She did not say in her statement where that money would come from. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister confirm that the extension of paid parental leave to the self-employed was supported by United Future as one of its Budget proposals to the Government? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Hon Ruth Dyson has no responsibility for United Future. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I can confirm that support. It is based primarily on the fact that United Future has a well-deserved reputation for supporting families as does this policy. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: What future plans does the Government have for the paid parental leave scheme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: A full evaluation of the paid parental leave scheme and the experiences of women including those currently not eligible for paid parental leave their partners and employers will be carried out this year. Any gaps or accessibility issues will be considered after that evaluation.
Hughes Darren: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6981] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pettis Jill: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill (No 2) Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Pettis Jill: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill (No 2) Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:16273] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 After listening to Wayne Mapp I have to say I expected him to break into something that sounded a bit like “Friends Romans countrymen” or something like that because it was such a melodramatic performance. Depicting doom gloom despondency and disaster was just a bit over the top and does Mr Mapp no credit at all. 
First of all I thank the Greens for the role they played as the legislation went through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. They worked cooperatively to help improve the legislation so that it creates a balance for employees and employers. That is the reality of the situation without the dramatics we just heard from Wayne Mapp. The claims that National is making about these amendments leading towards compulsory unionism are just— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Old mantra. 
JILL PETTIS 
:—as my colleague Paul Swain said an old mantra. We have heard it all before years ago. None of National’s dire predictions came to pass nor will any of the silly statements it has made during this debate come to pass either. This is good legislation and it creates a balance for employees and employers. I am very pleased to support it.
Dalziel Lianne: Energy Safety Review Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Energy Safety Review Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21809] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I hope that Max Purnell was listening to that speech because not too much later in the year Max Purnell will be paying tribute to that member as the former MP for Coromandel and I look forward to that day with great glee. 
The member who has just resumed her seat has overlooked one of the most important aspects of any bill—that is the regulatory impact statement that appears at the back of it. I will quote from that because I would hate for anyone to think that she knew anything about what she was saying: “The extension of competence-based licences to plumbers and gasfitters was consulted on with all licensed plumbers and drainlayers by the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board who have reported ‘that the majority of submissions supported a licensing regime where licences are issued on evidence of both initial and ongoing competency.’ There are however some licensed workers who have objected to the proposed ongoing competence requirements and getting broad agreement to actual training requirements may take a little time.” That is what this process is all about. It is about good process and that is something that people get from this Government—not the nonsense that we hear from the other side. The process in this bill has been consulted on widely. It will go to a select committee where there will be further input. When somebody decent represents the Coromandel then I am sure that the constituents of the Coromandel will do well out of this legislation as well.
Pettis Jill: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10551] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pettis Jill: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15603] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11174] 
12.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Immigration; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because she is hard-working and conscientious Minister. As the Minister herself has said she has not met her usual high standards over the handling of one issue. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister believe the claim by the Minister of Immigration that the document in question came from the lawyer’s office when the Minister of Immigration herself said in answer to question No. 1 that there was no identification on the top of that fax; if so how can she possibly know where it came from if it was not from inside her own department? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In early July the Mt Albert electorate office contacted Marshall Bird and Curtis asking for certain documents. Those documents were faxed. The Refugee Status Appeals Authority document and the covering letter were faxed slightly later than other documents. The fact that a fax number is not on the top of a document does not mean to say it was not faxed. One can actually set a fax not to have those numbers on the top. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that when asked by the Press Association after the TV3 report on Monday night whether she knew how TV3 obtained the lawyer’s notes the Minister replied: “No they didn’t discuss that with me” and in light of subsequent revelations does the Prime Minister believe the Minister’s answers to be technically correct and is that acceptable for a Minister of the Crown? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister’s has accepted that she gave misleading answers. She has apologised to the Prime Minister and yesterday sought to apologise to the House for that.
Vote: Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4033] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 76 
Noes 43 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.
Horomia Parekura: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4816] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
[Volume:618;Page:13911] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Whilst I must admit to a little surprise that the Opposition would want any questions after its performance we are always— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the end of that. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I will have the answer—and just the answer.
Vote: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11575] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 1 to Minister 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 1 to Minister 
[Volume:607;Page:4583] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I want to correct a misunderstanding or mistake that may have been made in answer to question No. 1. I may have implied that Fernridge Institute of Training Ltd was not registered by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. However it was the course that was not approved at the time the permits were issued. A 1-year course was subsequently approved in December last year. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for her explanation.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:9634] 
10. RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
 on behalf of  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Will there be an independent investigation into the actions of the Department of Corrections with regard to the supervision of paedophile Lloyd Alexander McIntosh; if not why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 No. The offender was being supervised 24 hours a day by a private provider contracted by the Department of Corrections. It is entirely appropriate that the Department of Corrections investigate the actions of the contractor and review its own procedures in relation to such contracts. 
Richard Worth 
: Does the Minister agree with the comments made by his colleague the Hon Philip Goff: “We’re fortunate that it was not at the most serious end of offending.”; if so is he prepared to explain those comments to Mr McIntosh’s female victim and her family who are coping with the reality that the State literally stood by while she was being assaulted? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: On most occasions I agree with the comments made by Philip Goff. I think it is really important to say that the department did all that it could. It made sure that McIntosh stayed in jail for as long as possible it had conditions applied to the release it negotiated a 24/7 supervision with McIntosh it contracted two agencies to carry them out and it took action when the conditions were breached. The department did all that it could. 
Ron Mark 
: Given that the Minister only yesterday finally conceded that despite his earlier protestations that there was no need for a fully independent inquiry into the Department of Corrections emergency response unit why will he not now accept that there is quite clearly a need for an independent inquiry into the department’s close supervision programme of Mr Lloyd Alexander McIntosh; or do we just have to sit here and wait until he gets another kick in the butt from the Prime Minister and finally does what we all know he needs to do. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question can be answered. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: For a start as I indicated to the member I was always relaxed about some form of inquiry but not political grandstanding. That is why we have taken this course of action which the member supports. The difference between the two is that this one is about contracting arrangements with third parties. That is why it should be done by the department.