edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2781] 
5.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What changes has she made to the composition of the board of trustees of the Correspondence School? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have directed that three additional appointments be made to the board of trustees of the Correspondence School. Two of these appointments will be qualified people from within the school’s community including parents and caregivers and the third will be filled by a member of the school’s teaching or general staff. 
Colin King 
: Why has the Minister made these changes to the composition of the board? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The Government believes that staff and school community representatives have valuable insights that can be used to drive good governance at the school. That is why we campaigned on a promise to include a staff representative and two school community representatives. This is the Government delivering on its promise to the Correspondence School community. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: What instruction did the Minister initially give the Correspondence School about the process it should follow for appointing a staff representative to its board? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: My recollection is that I asked it to conduct an election to appoint a staff member to the board. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Did the Minister in fact instruct the Correspondence School to appoint a staff representative to the board of trustees rather than follow the process of electing a staff representative as required by the Education Act; if so did she do so because she was simply unaware of the correct requirement? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: My recollection is that I directed the board to appoint a staff representative by way of an election as per the Education Act.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2777] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Hughes will be told all in good time. The Government’s business programme is being carefully crafted but if he has any information about further valedictories we may have to factor into it I would appreciate it if he would let me know.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2777] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Could the Deputy Leader of the House advise us whether the Government intends to introduce legislation relating to Auckland governance in the next two House sitting weeks and if so whether urgency will be used to progress that legislation either for its introduction and first reading or for its passage through all stages under urgency.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2777] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the first reading of bills on the Order Paper and to the remaining stages of the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. Wednesday 6 May will be a members’ day.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2777] 
Thursday 30 April 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the first reading of bills on the Order Paper and to the remaining stages of the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. Wednesday 6 May will be a members’ day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Could the Deputy Leader of the House advise us whether the Government intends to introduce legislation relating to Auckland governance in the next two House sitting weeks and if so whether urgency will be used to progress that legislation either for its introduction and first reading or for its passage through all stages under urgency. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Hughes will be told all in good time. The Government’s business programme is being carefully crafted but if he has any information about further valedictories we may have to factor into it I would appreciate it if he would let me know.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2386] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Guy Nathan: Sittings of the House 
Guy Nathan: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:653;Page:2404] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made very good progress this afternoon. I seek leave for the House to rise a little bit early this evening. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
English Bill: AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 3 to Minister 
English Bill: AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 3 to Minister 
[Volume:653;Page:2394] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to correct an answer I gave this afternoon in response to a parliamentary question. I referred to the gains that would be made from 1 April by superannuitants and beneficiaries. I said they would get either $13 a week or over $13 a week when the correct answer should have been that they would get up to $13 a week.
Graham Kennedy: Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2392] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to express the Green Party’s support in general for the Legal Services Amendment Bill. The bill responds as I think we all realise to concerns raised last year about the availability of legal aid for victims of crime who need to attend certain proceedings. 
Along with my Labour colleague David Parker and others who spoke before me we are in fundamental agreement with the principles of the bill. We note the insertion of the definitions of “offender” and “victim” which is a step in the right direction. I note the proposal that the bill provide that the Legal Services Agency may at any time decide not to recover a legal aid debt on various grounds—for example if the enforcement of the bill’s recovery would cause serious hardship to the aided person if the agency considered that it would be just and equitable not to engage in that recovery and for other reasons as well. We endorse that. 
In general the Green Party sees this as far from the ideal which would be the establishment of a comprehensive compensation scheme for victims but it does take us a little closer towards that ideal. On those grounds we are happy to support the bill’s referral to the select committee.
Barker Rick: Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2386] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is correct as I recall the debate. I was in the Chair last night. The Minister had concluded his speech and I then said that the question is that the motion be agreed to. The call now goes to the second on the list which is generally to the Labour Party should it wish to take the call.
Power Simon: Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2386] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just as a point of clarification the stand-in senior Government whip made the comment to me that I had some time remaining. It was my understanding that my speech had concluded last evening but if it had not then I am happy to carry on speaking. That is my understanding.
Barker Rick: Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Legal Services Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2386] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The next call on the list is for the Labour Party should it wish to take it.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2386] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Power Simon: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
Power Simon: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2386] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The question is— 
Keith Locke 
: Mr Assistant Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member should be aware that the House agreed to grant leave for the bill’s first and third readings to proceed without debate. That was the recommendation of the Business Committee I am advised. Leave was sought to proceed in that way and there was no objection.
Dyson Ruth: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2386] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I have sought clarification from the senior whip and I seek leave to adjust the vote in order to cast the vote of the Progressive party in support of the motion. I apologise for that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for the casting of the Progressive vote in favour. Is there any objection to that course of action? There being none the Clerk will amend the record.
Power Simon: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
Power Simon: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2377] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. 
Bill read a first time.
Finlayson Christopher: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2377] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I hereby present a report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. The report is made pursuant to section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Standing Order 261. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This paper is published under the authority of the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Procedure New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance First Reading Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2377] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave following agreement at the Business Committee earlier this week and negotiations that have taken place in the last day or so for the introduction and passing of the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill and for the question on the bill’s first reading to be taken without debate and for the bill following its second reading to be set down for third reading forthwith without debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2377] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. This is the New Zealand Parliament and members of this Parliament have the right to ask questions that are within the Standing Orders. Where a question is on notice and where it is in the public interest that that question be answered it is reasonable that the question should be answered. I accept that the questioning from the Hon Trevor Mallard went on for some time but if the member checks Mr Mallard’s questions he will see they were very carefully worded. It is my responsibility as the Speaker to uphold the integrity of this Parliament and to allow members to pursue their rights in this Parliament.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2376] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on the difficulty the Government faces given two issues raised today by the Opposition. At the start of question time the Hon Clayton Cosgrove wanted to know why the Government was not answering questions in a more informative manner. You made it clear that you would like that to happen. We have undertaken to give that matter much greater attention. But here we are at the end of question time with the Hon Trevor Mallard trying to bore into all sorts of strange and funny little details about why the Government in the form of a Minister turned up to a select committee to give the Opposition extra information.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2372] 
2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Between whom was the agreement he referred to in his answer to the House on 31 March 2009 and when did it occur? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 The agreement was between me and the Minister and the agreement was in the time leading up to the select committee hearing on 12 March. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did Dr Smith tell him that he had been asked to act for Mr Judge or that Mr Judge had asked him to convey his apologies as Mr Judge told the select committee this morning? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I was not told that he was asked to act.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2371] 
1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Was John Judge invited by him or a staff member to attend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the 2007-08 ACC financial review? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 I did not invite Mr Judge and it is my understanding that he was not invited by any staff member of the committee to attend the meeting on 12 March. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What has changed since Tuesday when the member gave a different answer to the same question? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I have no understanding of giving a different answer to that question. I maintain that I did not invite Mr Judge to that meeting and I ask the member to show me otherwise.
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2369] 
11.  
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What were the outcomes of the meeting held between him and his Australian counterpart on 29 March 2009 with regard to New Zealand’s position on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? 
Hon TIM GROSER (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: New Zealand’s position on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was not discussed during the Minister’s telephone conversation with the Australian Foreign Minister on 29 March. 
Hone Harawira 
: What consultation processes is the Government planning with regard to the declaration given the extensive work done by Maori over the past 25 years to have the declaration ratified by the United Nations and given the previous Government’s refusal to consult Maori on that matter? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: The Government is very aware of the importance of indigenous rights to the Maori Party and indeed to all New Zealanders. The Government has not made any decisions on the way forward with regard to that particular declaration. The Government will need to see the details of what the Australian Government announces and consider them very carefully before making further decisions. It is our understanding that the announcement will be made tomorrow. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does the Minister agree with the  
Oxford Dictionary 
 that an “aspiration” means to have “hope or ambition” and why would the New Zealand Government oppose an aspirational non-binding declaration that promotes hope or ambition for the rights of indigenous peoples? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: New Zealand has worked very hard over the last 30 years to recognise the rights of indigenous peoples and although the declaration is indeed aspirational and not legally binding this Government in contrast is committed to going well beyond aspirational commitments and working on binding responses to indigenous peoples’ issues. For example the Government is reviewing the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 to ensure amongst other things that mana whenua in relation to the foreshore and seabed is indeed appropriately recognised.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2368] 
10.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister for Senior Citizens 
: What representations if any has he made to the Minister for Social Development and Employment on behalf of senior citizens on the future of the SuperGold card? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Senior Citizens 
: The Minister has had no meetings with the Minister for Social Development and Employment on the subject as the future of the card is not in question. She has assured the Minister that there are no immediate plans no medium-term plans and no long-term plans. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister therefore tell the House whether the Minister for Social Development and Employment indicated to him that the SuperGold card is safe only in the immediate future and that she is giving no guarantee of the long-term future of the card? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The Minister is assured by the Minister for Social Development and Employment that there are immediate plans no medium-term plans and no long-term plans for cutting the SuperGold card. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Will he give a cast-iron guarantee that he will not allow the SuperGold benefits or the card itself to be replaced during this term of Parliament? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: In line with the Prime Minister’s statements that the Government will continue to fund the SuperGold card regardless of any increase in demand and in line with a similar indication given by the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce there will be a commitment by the Government to this initiative. As Minister of Social Development and Employment I can also give an assurance that there are no plans to replace it. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Has he seen any reports of the member’s views on schemes like the SuperGold card? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes the Minister has seen a report in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 from 1991 where the member Mr Ross Robertson argued strongly in this House against the precursor of the SuperGold card stating: “It is a passport to poverty.” Luckily this Government does not agree with that view. [ 
Interruption 
] 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I am older and wiser now! Has the Minister had any indication from the Minister for Social Development and Employment that she believes that the SuperGold card is “so last year”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No the Minister has not.
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2368] 
9.  
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he agree that bail laws need to be further tightened in light of revelations that Haiden Davis was on bail for a violent offence when he killed Augustine Borrell; if not why not? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; which is why this Government campaigned on tightening the Bail Act. In addition to the law that the Government passed within its first month of office we also promised to review the Bail Act. This work is under way. 
David Garrett 
: Will the Minister consider a return to requiring bail sureties which are set out in the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and which are in place in the United States and Canada; if not why not? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No I have not considered it but as always I am happy to discuss any suggestion that the member may make to improve the criminal justice system.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2361] 
4. 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki 
) on behalf of  
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What further steps has he taken to improve access to justice following his announcement last month that the shortfall in funding for community law centres would be addressed? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Last night at the International Legal Aid Group meeting in Wellington I announced a fundamental review of the legal aid system. Legal aid has a defining role in upholding access to justice by giving effect to the principle of equality before the law. However I am concerned that the current system of legal aid may actually lead to inequity by creating perverse incentives to prolong justice with a negative impact on victims and on costs to the court system. 
Nathan Guy 
: What is the scope of the review and who will lead it? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The review will consider all aspects of the legal aid system but the purpose is to consider how the system can be best structured so that it delivers effective legal services to those who need them the most in a way that is cost-effective and sustainable. I am very pleased to advise the House that Dame Margaret Bazley will chair the review team with the rest of the team to be announced at a later date. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement that the immediate future of New Zealand’s 27 community law centres has been assured through interim measures that will mean they have the same level of funding next year as they enjoyed in 2008-09; if so why has the Legal Services Agency not yet rolled over the existing purchase plans? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: All will happen in good time I say to the member.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2358] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am slightly reluctant to do this but I think you called for order four times then and I suggest that in future you might stand and that might cause people to be quiet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for his suggestion.
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2357] 
1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all the statements he has made as Prime Minister in the last month? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he stand by his statement that the Minister of Trade “took the opportunity” to resign his business interests that could cause a conflict of interest when he was advised to do so by the Cabinet Office last year; if so why was his Minister still holding shares in the Indian Overseas Group Ltd this week? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Those matters have been raised by the Opposition and by the media and Ministers have set about ensuring that every action they take complies with the  
Cabinet Manual 
 and the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he stand by his statement that all the world leaders he has talked to are “not particularly focused on climate change at the moment” and how does he reconcile that statement with the talks that President Obama and Prime Minister Gordon Brown had on this issue just yesterday or do they not take the Prime Minister seriously on this issue anyway? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes the Prime Minister does stand by his statement. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he stand by his statement that the Minister for ACC has “a brain about the size of the South Island” but after his bizarre behaviour in the last few weeks does he wish to revise the size to say the vacant Campbell Island? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes the Prime Minister does stand by his statement. The Labour Party may find it bizarre that a Minister wanted to go to the select committee to be accountable and explain his actions but it is part of us being a good Government. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he stand by his statement that the Minister of Internal Affairs is stupid and unwise; if so how long does he intend to retain a stupid and unwise Minister? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister stands by his statement that some of the Minister’s actions were unwise and the Minister has set about correcting those actions.
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
[Volume:653;Page:2357] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise another issue with you based on the Minister’s intervention. She said—and I ask whether this is acceptable to avoid answering a question—that the department I think she said uses some sort of template. My understanding from being a Minister— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: I didn’t say that! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Can I be heard in silence? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am listening to the member. The point of order is getting marginal. That is why I think he risks interjection. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well I have got only half a sentence out. All Ministers must sign questions and presumably they read them. Is it enough now for a Minister to say: “Well the department wrote it. I did not read it but I signed it.” and therefore— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that is not an appropriate point of order..
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
[Volume:653;Page:2357] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House does not need to take time on this issue right now. The matter will be resolved. I undertake to the House that the matter will be resolved in the interests of as far as possible all members. The matter is being taken seriously—I can assure the honourable member of that.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
[Volume:653;Page:2356] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would request that you consult some of the parliamentary records more carefully. My colleague by my side and I both received regular requests for lists of reports that we had received and we supplied those by way of written answer. A number of the written answers that I have seen come from Ministers recently are quite novel and actually go back rather to the Max Bradford precedent of denying answers on the ground that they might cost money to produce. We are not here to simply—
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
[Volume:653;Page:2356] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Colleagues I do not believe there is any need to take this matter any further. The point the Hon Gerry Brownlee raised is perfectly correct; the matter has been raised at the Business Committee. I indicated that I view this matter seriously. What the Hon Gerry Brownlee said is absolutely true: a practice built up over the years in this place whereby information was not available in that manner and even under the Official Information Act it was difficult to extract that information. However I want to make sure that the Standing Orders for questions are complied with in an appropriate manner and that is why as the Hon Gerry Brownlee has indicated the matter is being investigated to see whether we can resolve it. I do not think there is any point in our taking the issue further in the House today because we will see whether we can resolve it to the satisfaction of all members.
Norman Russel William: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
Norman Russel William: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
[Volume:653;Page:2356] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Points of order will be heard in silence. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: We have had a similar problem and I seek your assistance. For example we asked for the titles and dates of reports given to the Minister of Health by the Food Safety Authority and we were told that that information was not available and that the Minister would not bother to tell us what reports had been given to her. To us that seems totally unacceptable—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon David Cunliffe will respect the silence while Dr Russel Norman is making a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] The same applies to the Hon Gerry Brownlee. It is the House that those members are showing disrespect to. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: It seems to us completely unacceptable that we should not be able even to find out what reports the Minister has received from a Government agency. That seems to me to breach Standing Order 377.
Collins Judith: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
Collins Judith: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
[Volume:653;Page:2356] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Quite clearly the Department of Corrections was simply using the same format that it did under Phil Goff.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
[Volume:653;Page:2356] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I use a point of order to indicate to the House that there was a discussion about this matter at the Business Committee and I have undertaken on behalf of the National Government and Ministers to ensure that we do comply with the Standing Orders as far as possible. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate that point.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
[Volume:653;Page:2356] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need further advice on this matter. It is a valid point of order that the member has raised because the Standing Order does require questions to be answered if that is in the public interest. I do not want to get into a debate on it right now; I will look into the matter to see whether there is any reason why. I note the point the Hon Gerry Brownlee has made in that there are some traditions; even the Ombudsman has had to be brought in to try to acquire information. However times are changing and I want to make sure that information is made available in an appropriate manner. I want to look into it.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
[Volume:653;Page:2355] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 A lot of things in this House develop by way of convention. Those conventions are built up over a period of time. Upon becoming the Government the new National Government looked at the convention used by the previous Government in answering written questions. What did we find? A lot of the questions that Opposition members are asking are questions that we used to ask. Using the conventions of this House a reply similar to a reply provided earlier by the previous Government was supplied in this case. I suggest that Mr Cosgrove use some of the exceptional amount of time he now has on his hands to pursue those other avenues. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Speaking to the point of order—
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
[Volume:653;Page:2355] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the proceedings. I raise a point of order under Standing Order 377(1) in respect of the content of replies to written questions. I do it knowing that it would be your wish that it was discussed with you prior to my raising it in the House and I believe that discussions have occurred with representatives outside about replies to written questions. 
The point is simply that on 19 March written question No. 1434 asked of the Minister of Police: “What papers has she prepared for Cabinet or Cabinet Committees?”. She gave a precise and correct answer which was: “I have not prepared any papers for cabinet or cabinet committees.” There is no problem there. On the same day I lodged written question No. 1409 to the same Minister but in her capacity as Minister of Corrections. It was the same question. The answer came back: “There are other avenues the Member can use to source this information.” 
My query is simply—and I would be grateful Mr Speaker if you could consider it—that there does not appear to be any inconsistency with the public interest as per Standing Order 377(1) in providing a reply on the number of Cabinet papers submitted. The Minister in her capacity as Minister of Police did that very well saying there were none. It is completely inconceivable that a member in answer to the same question but addressed to a different portfolio would be told to go and get the information. Really it seems to be trifling with the Standing Orders. Mr Speaker I simply seek your advice either now or after you have considered the matter as to the quality of the answer.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2355] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I report to the House that the Order Paper is full of possibilities.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2355] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I ask the Leader of the House whether there is any possibility of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill and the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) in the name of the Hon Dr Richard Worth being debated early next week because the Opposition is keen to debate those two particular bills.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2355] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on 7 April priority will be given to the Appropriation (2007/08 Financial Review) Bill debate. Wednesday 8 April will be a members’ day but it is expected that at 5 p.m. on that day the Rt Hon Helen Clark will make her valedictory statement to the House. Thursday will be a day on which we concentrate on the third readings of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill. On that day the House will lift at 5 p.m. for the Easter break.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:653;Page:2404] 
Sittings of the House 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made very good progress this afternoon. I seek leave for the House to rise a little bit early this evening. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 3 to Minister 
AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 3 to Minister 
[Volume:653;Page:2394] 
AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to correct an answer I gave this afternoon in response to a parliamentary question. I referred to the gains that would be made from 1 April by superannuitants and beneficiaries. I said they would get either $13 a week or over $13 a week when the correct answer should have been that they would get up to $13 a week.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2355] 
Thursday 2 April 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on 7 April priority will be given to the Appropriation (2007/08 Financial Review) Bill debate. Wednesday 8 April will be a members’ day but it is expected that at 5 p.m. on that day the Rt Hon Helen Clark will make her valedictory statement to the House. Thursday will be a day on which we concentrate on the third readings of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill. On that day the House will lift at 5 p.m. for the Easter break. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I ask the Leader of the House whether there is any possibility of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill and the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) in the name of the Hon Dr Richard Worth being debated early next week because the Opposition is keen to debate those two particular bills. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I report to the House that the Order Paper is full of possibilities.
Worth Richard: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Sentencing (Offences Against Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:674] 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 National is wholly committed to effective law and order policies and has clearly signalled that there will be major changes to the law and legislation that exists today. 
The situation during the Labour Government’s period in office saw a number of things that are saddening: a significant rise in crimes of violence the growing power of gangs and their involvement in criminal trafficking and the need to protect vulnerable members of the community.  
I accept of course that the enactment of this legislation does not of itself resolve lawbreaking but it does send a very clear message to the community as to activity that we abhor and are determined to confront it does send a clear signal to intending offenders and of course it sends a very clear signal to the judges to seek in the exercise of their discretion in imposing sentences a particular weighting on the issue that is the subject of the bill. 
The Sentencing Act 2002 is structured in a way that might very well contemplate this law change. Section 8 deals with the principles of sentencing. Section 9 contains a number of aggravating factors then concludes by saying that nothing in these provisions “prevents the court from taking into account any other aggravating or mitigating factor that the court thinks fit;”. 
Hon David Parker 
: Including age. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: As Mr Parker has just commented there is not sufficiently direct reference to the position of children in section 9(1)(g) which provides as an aggravating and mitigating factor “that the victim was particularly vulnerable because of his or her age or health or because of any other factor known to the offender:”. The section is aligned with the definition in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 of a child as a boy or girl under the age of 14 years. 
There is a sad commentary in the explanatory note which accompanies the bill. Under the heading “Status quo and problem” it reads: “Offending against children has extremely serious consequences including the long-term consequences for both its victims and society as a whole. In 2006 Child Youth and Family received over 63000 referrals as a result of child abuse violence and trauma. Reported family violence a substantial proportion of which involves violence against children is growing faster than the reported violence category as a whole.” 
Mr Cosgrove said in his comments in the House that this bill is simply a smoke and mirrors change to the law but that is not so and I am sure that intuitively members of the House know that it is not so. Why would Labour vote for this change if it were only a smoke and mirrors change? The reality is that it sends a sharp and determined signal to those entities that I have already identified. This is a law change that on any measure is appropriate timely and necessary.
Smith Lockwood: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:654] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading forthwith. Just before I call the honourable Minister I would like to make a comment because I expect this debate will be robust as the issues are matters that are deeply held. 
I have been listening to the debate with a lot of interest this morning and I think it is timely since we are debating national standards in education to remind members of the House of the way the Standing Orders require us to address each other in this House. When a member is speaking he or she is the first person and is perfectly entitled to use “I” and “we”. The second person in this Chamber is the Speaker so when members use the word “you” in the second person they are referring to the Speaker. Members cannot say: “Minister you said something” because that would be referring to the Speaker. The other side of the House is the third person—“he” or “they”. I just remind all members of that for the benefit of new members and front-bench members as well because the debate will become much more personal when someone says: “Joe Bloggs you did this.” That is out of order because that is in the second person and the member would be referring to the Speaker. So with that said honourable members I call the Minister the Hon Anne Tolley.
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:654] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:644] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:644] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:627] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 4 be agreed to: 
To omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
Penalty for failure to enrol 
Section 24(1) is amended by inserting after “a fine not exceeding $1000 “ or in cases where the parent has actively contributed to the person not being enrolled a fine not exceeding $3000.”
McClay Todd: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
McClay Todd: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:627] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.