edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:658;Page:7195] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the first reading of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill and any bills into which any of those bills may be divided; and the introduction of Government bills.  
This motion is moved in order to gain extra sitting hours to enable the House to consider a number of bills that members of this House and outside groups have indicated they are keen to see passed as rapidly as possible.
Carter John: Urgent Debates — Rugby World Cup—Broadcasting 
Carter John: Urgent Debates — Rugby World Cup—Broadcasting 
[Volume:658;Page:7193] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 We are all going to get to see the rugby. Let us move on.
Bridges Simon: Urgent Debates — Rugby World Cup—Broadcasting 
Bridges Simon: Urgent Debates — Rugby World Cup—Broadcasting 
[Volume:658;Page:7188] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to take a call in the Rugby World Cup snap debate. In thinking about rugby I would say that if Trevor Mallard plays rugby like he plays politics he would be playing a nasty game. He would be in the ruck and members would not want to see what was happening in the ruck. I think that Pete Hodgson would probably be doing some detective work some super-sleuthing in the game. As for Phil Goff no one would know that he was playing; he would probably be left right out. Indeed probably more people watched him give that vein-popping speech in this debate than would vote for him. Mr Cosgrove of course would be angry. He would probably drop the ball but he would be angry. And Parekura Horomia probably would not be playing but would be looking for McDonald’s. David Cunliffe would be angry; he is angry now. 
We have seen first-class leadership from the Prime Minister in respect of the Rugby World Cup broadcasting rights. It was first class. I agree with what Audrey Young said in the newspaper about John Key and that the way he has handled this Rugby World Cup has been absolutely first class with perfect leadership. He has brought people together. He has brought the broadcasters together. He did a first-class job. 
And what will we have? We will have free-to-air broadcasts coming for all. That is what New Zealanders want. They are not interested in the beltway issues that the Labour Party is interested in. They are not interested in the side winds and all that stuff. What they want is what they are getting from the National Government: free-to-air for everyone in the country. I want to tell members what the people of New Zealand want. They want a John Key - led Government and they love rugby. Rugby is almost as popular in this country as John Key and the people will get both in 2011.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Rugby World Cup—Broadcasting 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Rugby World Cup—Broadcasting 
[Volume:658;Page:7182] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can—[ 
Interruption 
] I am dealing with a point of order. All I can quote is a www.beehive.govt.nz release under the name of the Prime Minister that states: “Prime Minister John Key says Cabinet today agreed to support a joint bid …”. [ 
Interruption 
] I am dealing with an important matter and there will be silence. I am not party to Cabinet discussions so there is no way that I can judge these matters beyond the evidence that is made available to me in support of a request for an urgent debate. 
At the end of the day I have to make a judgment on these matters. In this case on the basis of the Government’s own statement it appeared that Cabinet did make a decision because that is what the Prime Minister has stated. In terms of the other matters I have to consider such as whether it involved ministerial responsibility it clearly did. As to whether it is a matter that is of sufficient importance to set aside the general business of the House the Government sees it being of sufficient importance to have a Minister for the Rugby World Cup. As to whether it involves taxpayers’ dollars it does. 
On all counts I could not see how in fairness I could not grant this request for an urgent debate. As this matter does not involve legislation I see no other opportunity to debate it in the near future and that is why I accepted the request for an urgent debate. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to lead that debate.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:658;Page:7179] 
1. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: When did submissions on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill close? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 Tuesday 13 October 2009. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has he received any complaints about the short time-frame given for submissions and for the report back of the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Any correspondence to the committee chair remains the property of the committee and within the committee while the item remains an open item of business of the committee. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although that might be correct my understanding of the point of questions to members is that those details could be revealed to the House notwithstanding the fact that the committee’s business was proceeding. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a fair point the member raises about sorting out these kinds of issues but as I understand the Standing Orders correspondence to a committee remains confidential to the committee until it reports back to the House. So I think the response from the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee was appropriate. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My supplementary question was not confined to correspondence. It referred to any complaints so anything verbal anything by telephone anything— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was a nice try but I think the member must accept that the chair of the committee is at liberty to interpret the question in the way that he did and I think that is fair enough.
Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:658;Page:7178] 
12.  
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Does he accept the judgment of the report card released on 16 October 2009 by ActionAid that ranks New Zealand last out of 22 donor countries for the quality of its aid programme for hunger relief and sustainable agriculture; and what does he propose to do to improve New Zealand’s performance? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: No. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does he intend to set a date for New Zealand to reach the aid target of 0.7 percent GNI to show that his Government will improve on our current miserly and inept performance—to paraphrase Kipling: last loneliest ugliest? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Those figures are always under review but the fact of the matter remains that the report that the member refers to is flawed in a number of respects. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Is he concerned given the flaws in the report that the emphasis of his Government in his aid policy on economic growth will undermine the goals of poverty and hunger alleviation in the Pacific Islands countries specifically given New Zealand’s ranking of last for sustainable agriculture second-to-last for social protection and last for climate change? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Phil Twyford 
: How will the Government’s policy to re-orient New Zealand’s aid to private sector development help reduce the rate at which women in Papua New Guinea die in childbirth which is 23 times higher than the rate in New Zealand given that the ActionAid report rates New Zealand as the lowest in the OECD on aid to social protection? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Unlike the Labour member we do not believe that bureaucracy can be equated with aid. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I seek leave to table the report of ActionAid which points out New Zealand’s miserable performance so that the Government can explain in greater detail the flaws— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should just seek leave to table the document and describe the document not comment on it further. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:658;Page:7177] 
11.  
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: To the Minister of Police—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please show courtesy to Sandra Goudie. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Has she received any feedback from the police on the Government’s Action Plan on Methamphetamine? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. The police have welcomed the Government’s Action Plan on Methamphetamine and will take full advantage of the increased enforcement and legislative powers that the plan provides. 
Sandra Goudie 
: How will the Government’s action plan assist police in the fight against methamphetamine? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The new Police Methamphetamine Control Strategy will assist police to break supply chains reduce methamphetamine-related crime and seize the profits and assets made through P dealing. The police will be cracking down on gangs through extra intelligence working with the Customs Service and targeting P cooks. All areas of policing will be targeting manufacturers and dealers of P including road policing general duties the Criminal Investigation Branch community constables and Youth Aid.
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:658;Page:7177] 
10.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement: “I certainly would describe my style as open and transparent.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How much taxpayers’ money did Cabinet decide on yesterday to subsidise the bid for Rugby World Cup TV free-to-air rights? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: That number is actually unknown on a number of grounds. Firstly the International Rugby Board has not yet agreed to the bid so we do not know the final analysis. Secondly there is still the unknown factor of how much the commercial rights can be sold down to outside of the main broadcasting networks. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of his renewed commitment to openness and transparency will he now confirm that the amount that Cabinet agreed it could go to could now exceed $5 million? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No the figure is less than that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of his renewed commitment to openness and transparency renewed in his first answer and given the fact that he says the figure is under $5 million what is the maximum figure Cabinet agreed to? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I said in answer to an earlier question I am unable to answer that at this time for two reasons. One is that I simply do not know because the final bid has not yet been approved by the International Rugby Board. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How do you know it’s under $5 million? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The reason I know it is under $5 million is that it is considerably under $5 million at this point and I cannot see it moving.
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:658;Page:7176] 
9.  
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent announcements has she made about trades academies? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Last week I announced the names of five further trades academies that will join the already announced Southern Cross Campus trades academy. These five will open their doors in 2011. I also announced that a further six proposals will be developed with a view to establishing trades academies in the future. 
Louise Upston 
: What types of proposals have been accepted in this round? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Trades academies are partnerships between schools tertiary institutions industry training organisations and employers that will give students a head start in an industry-related career. The successful proposals show that these organisations have met this Government’s drive for innovative thinking to get more of our young people engaged in learning. In some the lead partner is a school like Northland College. One school Catlins Area School will involve virtual learning environments. Other trades academies such as the one in the electorate of the member who asked the question involve a tertiary-led partnership—in that case between the Waikato Institute of Technology and Cambridge High School. 
Louise Upston 
: How does her announcement last week compare with the commitments made by the Government previously? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: This Government had previously committed to supporting five trades academies this term. The announcement last week that we will establish six academies including the Southern Cross Campus academy and look to establish a further six academies shows that this Government does not just deliver on its promises it over-delivers. We are committed to supporting different pathways to keep young New Zealanders engaged in learning.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:658;Page:7175] 
7.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What progress has been made on the Government’s plan to hold a referendum on the electoral system as set out in National’s election policy? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Today I announced on behalf of the Government that a referendum will be held in conjunction with the 2011 general election. The referendum will ask two questions of voters: first whether they wish to retain MMP and second which of a list of options is their preferred alternative voting system. If the majority vote to retain MMP no further referendum is required. If the majority vote for change the Government commits to holding a second referendum at the time of the 2014 election that will ask voters to choose between MMP and the most preferred alternative system. If the majority vote for a new system in 2014 it will be in place in time for the 2017 general election. I thank all political parties for their initial constructive engagement on this issue. 
Chester Borrows 
: What alternative systems will voters be asked to choose from in the 2011 referendum? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: To date Cabinet has made decisions about the timing structure and basic format only of the referenda. The next series of decisions will focus on the question wording including the alternative systems to be put up as well as further decisions on rules for the referenda and a public information process. Legislation will be introduced next year to enable the referenda to be held. It will provide the public with an opportunity to have a say on these issues through the select committee process. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why is the Minister announcing today a decision made by Cabinet a month ago and is it simply a generous attempt by the Minister to provide a distraction from the shambles surrounding his colleagues the Minister of Broadcasting and the Minister for ACC? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Because until recently the House was in adjournment and I wanted to take the opportunity to meet with each political party’s representative which works better in a sitting week. The answer to the second question is no.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:658;Page:7229] 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Subsequent to discussions among the whips earlier this afternoon relating to the House programme I seek leave for Government order of the day No. 5 to be postponed until after Government order of the day No. 7.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:658;Page:7200] 
Business of the House 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I need to have a temporary Speaker. I ask whether Mr Twyford would like to act in the role of temporary Speaker while I go outside the House in preparation for the Committee.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:658;Page:7195] 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday 21 October notwithstanding urgency and for questions to be lodged in the normal manner pursuant to Standing Order 372. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Points of Order — Petitioners—Access to Public Gallery 
Points of Order — Petitioners—Access to Public Gallery 
[Volume:658;Page:7163] 
Points of Order 
Petitioners—Access to Public Gallery 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Earlier today there were a number of people outside Parliament who were in support of the petitions regarding adult and community education and who sought access to the public gallery in order to be here to hear their petitions presented to the House. They were denied access. They are petitioners and I seek your ruling on this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must say it is a matter that I am totally unaware of and therefore I cannot possibly comment on it. Normally I am not familiar with issues around access to the public gallery on any given day. I can certainly investigate whether anything untoward took place and I will do that for the honourable member.
Obituaries — Mate Huatahi Kaiwai 
Obituaries — Mate Huatahi Kaiwai 
[Volume:658;Page:7163] 
Obituaries 
Mate Huatahi Kaiwai 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to move a motion without notice or debate. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: E te Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare nei tena koe. Ka whakatau au  
Kia whakapuakina e te Whare tona tino aroha mo tetahi o nga tino kuia morehu o Te Tai Rawhiti Ngati Porou kua hinga atu a Mate Huatahi Kaiwai iwa tekau ma wha ona tau; te wahine nei i kaha ki te manaaki i te rangatahi me te tautoko i to tatou reo Maori; he kaiarahi a ia o Te Taura Whiri me nga ropu katoa e tautoko ana i te ora o te reo Maori me tona kura o Hukarere; ka pa pouri te motu nei me nga Maori mo te ngaro o tenei wahine te tamahine o te Honore Ta Apirana Ngata. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker. I move  
That the House express its deep sadness in respect to a great surviving old lady of Ngati Porou East Coast who has passed away Mate Huatahi Kaiwai who was 94 years old; this woman was a strong supporter of youth and of our Maori language; she was patron of her school Hukarere and a figurehead of the Maori Language Commission and of all other organisations that supported the revival of the Maori language; the nation and Maoridom grieve for the loss of this woman the daughter of Sir Apirana Ngata.] 
It is with regret that I inform the House of the passing of one of the great Maori women leaders in this country. Mate Huatahi Kaiwai who was 94 years old has passed on. This woman was the strongest proponent for supporting youth and an unstinting supporter of the Maori language. She was the patron of Hukarere College of Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori and of other Maori organisations that developed te reo Maori. We grieve for this great wahine the daughter of the late Hon Sir Apirana Ngata. 
Motion agreed to.
Visitors — Scotland—Presiding Officer Scottish Parliament 
Visitors — Scotland—Presiding Officer Scottish Parliament 
[Volume:658;Page:7163] 
Tuesday 20 October 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Scotland—Presiding Officer Scottish Parliament 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the Scottish Parliament led by Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair and that the delegation in the Speaker’s Gallery be welcomed also. 
Mr Alex Fergusson accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Tisch Lindsay: Sittings of the House 
Tisch Lindsay: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:656;Page:5662] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5584] 
2.  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister for Infrastructure 
: What measures is the Government taking to improve New Zealand’s infrastructure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister for Infrastructure) 
: 
 As part of the Government’s plan for the road to recovery we have outlined a $7.5 billion 5-year plan to improve telecommunications schools and hospitals. We have also lifted spending on State highways by $1 billion over the next 3 years are investing record sums in upgrading the national electricity grid and have a plan to roll out ultra-fast broadband. 
Craig Foss 
: Why is the Government focused on improving New Zealand’s infrastructure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: After 10 years of mismanagement of the economy it is very important that we increase our productivity. Better roads more secure electricity and faster broadband will help us to increase productivity and grow our exports. 
Craig Foss 
: How does increased infrastructure investment support jobs? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government’s increased investment in productive infrastructure has two benefits for jobs. In the short term it supports thousands of jobs as these projects get up and running and in the long term the benefits from a more productive economy will support sustainable jobs in the export sector. Unfortunately many people who are losing their jobs now are finding out that their jobs were based on the previous Government’s reckless spending and too much borrowing. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: When will the Government announce its intentions to use the infrastructure fund to subsidise the development of water storage capacity for the agricultural sector? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There have been a number of propositions from the agricultural sector for some kind of Government participation but it is not exactly clear what it has in mind or what might be effective. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Can the Minister guarantee for the House that his expenditure on infrastructure is warranted from a cost-benefit point of view including investment in the cycleway KiwiRail and other similar make-work schemes? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: For the broad range of infrastructure I can give the member an assurance that what the Government is currently investing in meets the criteria of productive investment. I must say however that KiwiRail is a bit more of a problem. The previous Government spent $1 billion acquiring KiwiRail; today it is probably worth nothing. We are going through a major exercise of trying to work out how much investment is appropriate. 
Craig Foss 
: How will the Government maximise its investment in infrastructure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The next step in our plan to maximise investment in infrastructure is to produce the first national infrastructure plan probably early next year. That plan will help to prioritise investment by identifying bottlenecks and investment gaps.
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:656;Page:5662] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 We have made good progress this evening. I seek leave for the House to rise slightly early as we have made such good progress.
Power Simon: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5662] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Justice and Electoral Committee 
 consider the bill and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 19 October 2009 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during questions for oral answer) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c) 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Finlayson Christopher: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5661] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call to congratulate my friend and colleague the Minister of Justice on moving on this very important issue so quickly. He has had a huge legislative workload this year but he has given this issue some real priority. This is indeed a very very serious issue and one that has been crying out for reform for many years. 
I commend the Law Commission for a very good piece of work which was sent to the former Minister in charge of the Law Commission the Hon Mark Burton on 30 September 2007. The foreword by Sir Geoffrey Palmer makes for very interesting reading. He referred to the 2001 report which had recommended repeal of the partial defence of provocation. I was very disappointed that Labour during its term in Government did not do anything about that. Then in 2007 this report came out and it expressed the views of the legal profession and of Crown solicitors. Twelve out of 16 Crown solicitors supported the repeal of the partial defence of provocation. The report said that senior members of the judiciary have in appellate judgments repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the defence. It referred to the concerns of women’s groups; it referred to the concerns of gay groups. As Sir Geoffrey said the prevailing view thus appeared to be that something must be done about section 169 of the Crimes Act. But unfortunately the previous Government did not do anything about that matter after it received a very powerful report from the Law Commission. 
Mr Chauvel is right. The defence should have gone before now and the fact that it did not go should be a source of shame for the previous Labour Government. It was not because of the previous Government’s desire to have the Sentencing Council look at the issue. I think that is a feeble “after the event” rationalisation. It was because Helen Clark’s Government had different priorities. I would not want Labour Party members to think they can take any credit for this Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill. The credit for it rests solely with the Minister of Justice. They cannot take any credit whatsoever for it. They had every opportunity to act during their time in Government but neglected the issue or refused to take any action whatsoever. Undermining freedom of expression in an election year was their priority; reforming the criminal law is ours. 
Bill read a first time.
Quinn Paul: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Quinn Paul: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5661] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I am humbled to be invited by the whips office to make a short call on this bill the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill. The reason I am humbled and pleased to be able to stand to make a short call on the bill is that I support it on the basis that the defence is past its use-by date. 
This law has been on our statute book for a number of decades. It was based on a justice system in a society and in a period when in particular the mandatory life sentence for murder applied and provocation was one of the mitigating circumstances that was taken into consideration in order to deal with that situation. At this moment in time it is appropriate that we review this statute. In so doing while I acknowledge previous speakers—and I do not want to lessen the impact of the speeches that have gone before or the sincerity of those speeches—I think it is important to acknowledge that the defence of provocation has been called upon in most circumstances by a man who has had his sexuality questioned by a woman. I think it is very important that we note that it is a much broader issue than—if I can frame it in this way—just gay-bashing. I think that we should not lose perspective of that fact. 
I am very pleased that I will be able to participate in the conversation that will occur in the Justice and Electoral Committee and I will be pleased to join both my colleagues on this side of the House and my friends on the other side of the House to consider this bill. Like my friend and colleague Lynne Pillay I look forward to hearing the submissions when they are presented before us. With those few short words I say that I will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee. Thank you.
Bennett Paula: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Bennett Paula: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5646] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee report progress 
. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Carter David: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Carter David: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5633] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I certainly want to respond to the contribution Sue Kedgley made prior to the dinner break because it was a contribution that was full of inaccuracies. There was hardly a word of truth in the whole contribution. Firstly she spoke about the live sheep export issue. She accused this Government of working under the radar to reopen that trade. She knows full well that the discussions were initiated in 2003 by the then Labour Government which she was prepared to support over 9 long years and those discussions have been ongoing at a very slow pace. But for her to suggest that we were negotiating under the radar is completely untrue. 
The second issue she raised was an accusation that we were about to launch the trade. The only reason that that particular accusation came to light was that she released a press release saying that in June this year we would be resuming trade. As anybody who is abreast of this issue will know June 2009 has passed and the trade has not been initiated so I suggest to Sue Kedgley that she maintain some accuracy around this issue instead of trying to wind up many hundreds of New Zealanders who share a genuine concern for animal welfare as indeed I do. 
The issue she then referred to was the pork industry’s continued use of sow crates. Again she suggested that I am not making enough progress to wind up this issue. Again I remind her that she supporting the Labour Government had 9 long years to do something and accomplished nothing in that time. I have made considerable progress in that I have given very stern and strong messages to the pork industry which has accepted the need to reform its industry and is working to do so. 
Sue Kedgley claims that I have the ability to make changes to the animal welfare code and that is quite incorrect. I have gone through that quietly with her on one occasion and also in the House trying to explain to her how the law works. Section 76 of the Animal Welfare Act is quite specific. I can make minor amendments to a code but she seems to think that something as major as this would slip through without being recognised as substantially more than a minor amendment. In fact it would then incur the wrath of the industry not unfairly I might point out and result in judicial review. 
I care deeply about animal welfare but I will not see the Greens continue to use the issue simply for political gain on their part and come down to the House and proffer half-truths and inaccuracies. The people of New Zealand deserve to know the truth. I am quite prepared to give it to them but I expect Sue Kedgley to do the same. 
Vote agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5626] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave for this debate to be held on the next sitting day on which the estimates are to be considered. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We must be more specific Mr Mallard. We are talking about Vote Education. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I seek leave for Vote Education to be considered on the next sitting day that the estimates are to be considered if that is the Government’s convenience. Clearly the Government could come back to it next week if it wanted to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Clerk informs me that the wording should be to postpone the debate. It could be that this debate finishes today as opposed to another day. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. We are on Vote Education.
Mallard Trevor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5625] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There has been a little bit of interchange across the Chamber between the senior Government whip and myself as to whether the primary Minister and the officials will be available. The estimates debate is the time when there is to be a detailed examination of the Minister. Obviously I am treading around the conventions as far as absence is concerned in talking about the availability of the Minister to make a speech. 
We have three members here who want to speak. I want to speak mainly on the details of school closures and the decisions that the Minister has recently made and on special education which is the responsibility of Heather Roy. We have one member who wants to talk on early childhood education and the details in that area and we have a third member who wants to talk on Maori education. I accept that one of the Associate Ministers is available. I am sure that the Ministry of Education officials are running across the road to get here although they have not made it yet in order to back him up. I wonder whether it is possible because of the detailed questions to carry on with one of the other estimates and to come back to this one at the point when the Minister and the officials are available. Even frankly if Dr Sharples was available to handle Mr Davis’ questions I think that would also be acceptable. 
I remind you Mr Chairperson of what this phase of the Budget is. It is the detailed approach to the estimates whereby we want to ask some very specific questions that relate to individual schools in my case. Although I have lot of respect for Dr Mapp I am sure that without ministry support he will not have the answers available in order to respond within the time frame of this debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that. I draw the member’s attention to Speaker’s ruling 121/2 which clearly says that the Government can decide who the Minister in the chair is at that stage. The Government is exercising that right. I remind members that this is a time-limited debate so points of order need to be very succinct. If points of order are taken up it reduces the time of the debate for other members to have their say. If the member wishes he could seek leave for the reason that he has identified to delay this vote until other members are here. It does not mean to say however that the Minister will change but if there are other members who wish to take the call when you seek leave we will put that to the Committee.
Goudie Sandra: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5615] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee): 
 How refreshing it is to be part of a Government committed to real change and showing real leadership at all levels! In speaking to the estimates for Vote Corrections I pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Minister of Corrections the Hon Judith Collins. In conjunction with the Department of Corrections the Minister has done in 6 months what the previous Government could not do in 9 long years. I also want to say what a great job my colleagues on the Law and Order Committee are doing supported by ACT in spite of the many challenges they face. 
So what is the good news? Well there is plenty of good news and the Minister is doing such a great job it is hard to know where to start. I mention in particular probation funding which has increased to improve community safety. The Government is injecting an extra $255.9 million into the probation service to address issues raised in the critical report by the Auditor-General. As the Minister has said on numerous occasions the safety of the public should be the No. 1 priority when offenders are released on parole. This Government inherited a probation system under extreme stress. The previous Government increased the number and complexity of community-based sentences without providing enough resources or training of probation staff. The extra funding shows that this Government is serious about fixing the probation system and improving the safety of the public. The total extra funding includes $205 million of operating spending over the next 4 years and $50.9 million in capital spending in the next 2 years. 
The Auditor-General said in February that the Community Probation and Psychological Services had 10 percent fewer probation officers than it needed due to increasing numbers of offenders on community sentences. Budget operating funding of $133.8 million over 4 years will enable the Community Probation and Psychological Services to recruit an extra 134 probation officers 26 front-line managers and 20 psychologists which will ensure it can effectively manage almost 100000 sentences and orders a year. That is a magnificent step forward; these are fantastic initiatives by the Minister. This is just a part of the many initiatives that the Minister of Corrections the Hon Judith Collins is undertaking and it has been a fantastic start to this Government’s control of corrections and making sure that the job is done and done well.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — SAS—Deployment to Afghanistan 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — SAS—Deployment to Afghanistan 
[Volume:656;Page:5597] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from Keith Locke and the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the deployment of Special Air Service personnel to Afghanistan. I have also received a letter from Charles Chauvel seeking to debate the announcement of an emissions trading scheme target range of 10 percent to 20 percent below 1990 levels. 
These are both particular cases of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. I would have been inclined to accept either one of them. However there can be only one such debate on the same day. The Standing Orders provide that in these circumstances the Speaker must determine which is the most urgent and important. I have concluded given the immediate significance of the decision to recommit SAS personnel that it should be given priority. There will be other occasions upon which the emissions trading scheme targets can be debated. 
Keith Locke’s application was the first one I received and I therefore call upon Mr Locke to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5594] 
10.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What work is the Government doing to make New Zealand’s roads safer? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Today I launched the Safer Journeys discussion document containing a range of possible Government initiatives that could help to improve road safety. The Safer Journeys discussion document invites views on a number of priority road safety areas including alcohol and drug-impaired driving safer speeds young drivers motorcycling roads and roadsides. The feedback received from road users will be used to develop a national road-safety strategy for the next 10 years. Initial actions will be implemented over the next year or two and I stress that public acceptability is an important aspect of any changes. 
David Bennett 
: What else is the Government currently doing to improve road safety? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Last week I announced that from 1 November this year it will be against the road rules for drivers to text or talk on a hand-held cellphone while driving. This is aimed at combating a specific driver distraction that has grown to become a significant problem. Between 2003 and 2008 there were 482 injury crashes and 25 fatal crashes in New Zealand where the use of a mobile phone or other telecommunications device was identified as a contributing factor. Drivers will still be able to use hands-free cellphones and make 111 calls for genuine emergencies as well. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When the Minister set a fine of $80 for talking on a cellphone did he take into account the fact that for nearly 20 years drivers have been allowed to talk on a cellphone and drive; if so why did he set the fine so high when it comes in in just a few weeks’ time rather than allowing drivers to get used to the change with a lower fine and warnings? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Due consideration—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not know what provoked that outburst from the back of the House but I think we should actually hear the Minister’s answer before there is all that massive interjection. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Due consideration was given to the appropriate level of fine and number of demerit points. It is equivalent to exceeding the speed limit by 11 to 15 kilometres an hour. 
David Bennett 
: What other initiatives is the Minister aware of that improve road safety? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have seen a proposal from a former member of this House who was concerned about the use of retreads once they are past their use-by date. He seemed to think that it is a particular issue in and around the parliamentary complex resulting in some erratic steering. It is not an issue that is expressly raised in the road safety strategy but I am advised that the Minister is prepared to accept submissions from any members particularly from those on the Opposition benches who are concerned about the overuse of retreads once they are past their use-by date.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5594] 
9.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What protection is available to workers who are made redundant? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 As the public advisory group noted redundancy is a form of dismissal and is subject to the personal grievance provisions and other protections of the Employment Relations Act. Compensation remedies and other damages are available under those provisions. 
Darien Fenton 
: What advice would the Minister give to the 45 Tritech workers who have just been made redundant without any redundancy compensation? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: For anybody who loses their job it can certainly be an upsetting experience and we certainly sympathise with them. That is why this Government has made sure we are taking every step we can to get the economy growing again and to help workers to both stay in jobs and get new ones. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does the Minister think it is fair that some of those workers who have been with Tritech for more than 20 years are being sent out the door with no recognition of their service and with nothing to tide them and their families over in the hard times until they find a new job? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Redundancy is a matter of agreement between the parties obviously. I note that 78 percent of collective agreements actually do have redundancy provisions so unions have obviously negotiated good provisions in that regard. In relation to statutory redundancy I say that in the public advisory group’s report 14 of the 22 submitters supported the status quo; only eight were against.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:656;Page:5662] 
Sittings of the House 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 We have made good progress this evening. I seek leave for the House to rise slightly early as we have made such good progress. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Smith Lockwood: Urgency 
Smith Lockwood: Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:729] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can give as much or as little reason as he chooses to give. I believe that his explanation of the issues behind urgency was quite helpful to the House. In future the Minister may choose to give more reason than he did but that is a matter for his judgment.
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:728] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This of course is not a debatable motion and I am certainly not trying to debate it but there is a requirement for the Minister to give a reason. He did not actually give a reason. He stated that this was in accordance with the Standing Orders and then outlined very helpfully I think to the House the nature of the business that is to be considered. But he does have to give a reason for urgency.
Event: Members Sworn 
Event: Members Sworn 
[Volume:651;Page:707] 
Members Sworn 
Catherine Delahunty was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took her seat in the House.