edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
[Volume:638;Page:8192] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The point is simply this. To suggest that the Speaker of the House is constrained by the Standing Orders or by previous Speakers’ rulings is an utter nonsense. The Speaker’s role is to claim privilege for this House and the Speaker regularly brings down new rulings that relate to the conduct of this House and the progress of the work that it undertakes. I do not think it is fair that on an issue of such considerable public importance a ruling is brought down based on the tightest interpretation of the Standing Orders that could be argued or for that matter on previous Speakers’ rulings.
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
[Volume:638;Page:8192] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member is clearly relitigating your decision despite your warning and is therefore putting himself in some danger it seems to me. But furthermore it is an extraordinary statement—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the member want to stay in the House? We are talking on a point of order here. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It seem to me extraordinary Madam Speaker that the member also argued that you are not constrained by the Standing Orders. I would have thought it absolutely clear that the Speaker is constrained by the Standing Orders; that is the very nature of the job. When it comes to Speakers’ rulings at some times Speakers may determine that previous Speakers’ rulings should not be followed. It is extraordinarily rare that that happens. Speakers like judges very naturally tend to follow precedent in these matters and are very loathe to overturn precedent in such matters—for good reason. Otherwise we would simply enter into a phase of capricious decision-making rather than orderly decision-making based on precedent.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8187] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising the issue. I took it that the question was not asking about National Party policy but was in fact within the area of ministerial responsibility for housing—and that responsibility is not time limited in that sense. But I thank the member for raising the question. In future I will remind members of that ruling—that they are not responsible for each other’s policies.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8186] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There is a very important point here. One has to draw a very clear distinction between responsibility for policy issues—clearly a Government Minister is not responsible for National Party policy—and merely eliciting information about what a Government did at some point in the past. Otherwise theoretically under that situation even if it was a Minister in a previous Government of the same political hue who did something the current Minister could claim that he or she is not responsible because there is now a different Minister—could hide behind that fact.
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8186] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Earlier in question time I raised with you a point of order about the appropriateness of Russell Fairbrother’s supplementary question about the National Party and its housing policy and you said that the question was in order. I refer you to Speaker’s rulings 139/6 and 139/7. Speaker’s ruling 139/6 states: “The Government can answer only for its own intentions and has no responsibility for the Opposition.” Speaker’s ruling 139/7 states: “A question which does nothing more than request information about a party document as opposed to seeking information about Government policy is out of order.” Madam Speaker if you look at Speaker’s rulings 139/6 and 139/7 you will see that Mr Fairbrother’s question was indeed out of order.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8181] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Energy—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This chipping at members across the Chamber is not helpful. [ 
Interruption 
] 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is time the member went—you have been too tolerant Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I am. If there is another interjection of this sort from either side members will be out. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will try not to provoke him. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not helpful either. We will all start again. Just ask the question please.
Vote: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8252] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8252] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 51 in the name of Kate Wilkinson to new section 378B in clause 7 be agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8252] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 1 be agreed to.
Burton Mark: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8247] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to pick up on the member’s last point first. I think that if indeed as he seemed to be suggesting the provisions that he was concerned about in section 378C(3)(a) (b) (c) and (d) inserted by clause 7 of the Criminal Procedure Bill—he referred at length to each of those—existed in glorious isolation from other provisions then the concerns that he has raised would be valid. But one of the other principles that is perhaps equally important is that one reads the entire provision. If he had referred to section 378C(1) and (2) which of course will need to be satisfied as a prerequisite to any of the provisions in section 378C(3)(a) (b) (c) and (d)—[ 
Interruption 
] I did not interrupt the member. I am trying to answer the questions he has raised in the spirit of cooperation. The fact is if the member reads those parts they make very clear that the police need to have good cause to suspect that information obtained will implicate an acquitted person and then the police have to get the Solicitor-General’s consent. Those provisions which the member conveniently neglected to mention are an enormous additional hurdle—and quite rightly so. So I think that the concerns that the member has raised are in fact without real merit. 
I acknowledge the fine contribution from my colleague Russell Fairbrother. It was one of the most thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions I have heard in my 13 years in this House. I think he raises a fair challenge to the comments from both Kate Wilkinson and Chester Borrows in terms of the issue of double jeopardy. Frankly I think that Mr Fairbrother is probably right. The small steps in this bill are timid in this regard; perhaps it is appropriate that they be so and that we take such steps carefully. But I remind members that these are small steps that deal with two exceptional circumstances. The first circumstance is in terms of a tainted acquittal gained with an administration of justice defence. The second is where there is new and compelling evidence. If one goes back to the test that Mr Fairbrother put before members—that is how one could explain not using the advantages of information from technologies now available which were never conceived of when double jeopardy had its origins—then I think one sees that that test is a fair one to apply and is one that we should apply. 
So I think that the small tentative steps taken in this legislation are well justified and are backed by enormous changes in the quality of evidence available to support those steps being taken.
Dunne Peter: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8240] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I have listened with interest to the very creative suggestions made by a number of members about the title of the bill. I have thought seriously about whether we should adopt some of those titles but I say to the Committee that with respect I decline to accept any of that advice. I think the title set out here the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) is probably the most accurate title. It does really say it all. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It says it all. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am comforted in the choice of that title by the support of Mr Williamson. I take the view that on this issue at least what he says goes. He is happy with the title being the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) and I will go along with that more than happily. 
In the midst of all the frivolity that passed for the debate on the last couple of clauses one or two members raised questions about what will be done to let students know that this bill has been passed. There are a couple of things. There will be a publicity programme— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Free wine! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It would be a nice thought but I do not think so. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: For Moana. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Members can provide their own wine if they like. There will be a publicity programme that will draw to the attention of borrowers the provisions of the new scheme. We will certainly be doing what we can to make contact with borrowers through the records we have and through the records obtained through the data match. Already since the bill was introduced we have been indicating to a number of people particularly parents who have written on behalf of students overseas to inquire about students’ indebtedness the changes that are likely and the steps they will need to take in order to draw to the attention of their son or daughter the provisions that will apply. So there will be a concerted effort to draw to the attention of those up to 40000 students what the changes are how they will be affected and the steps they need to take. 
I do not think there is much more that I need to say on that other than to acknowledge the support that all members have given to this bill and to thank them for the comparatively speedy time in which we have been able to consider it this evening. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Peachey Allan: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Peachey Allan: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8233] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). This is the part of the bill that as the previous speaker said makes it work. We are under no illusions about this at all; what we are dealing with here is an election bribe. I want to pick up on an interjection that Mr Donnelly of New Zealand First made when my colleague Paul Hutchison was speaking. There is no way that attention can be diverted from the actual intent that the Labour Government had with this legislation by describing a tax cut as a bribe. One cannot and does not bribe people with their own money. If there are people in this Chamber who have that view then I would very very strongly suggest that they think about the nature of representative government and the purpose of taxation and consider very very carefully the morality and the integrity of a Government that collects huge sums of money off hard-working New Zealanders to keep in the fighting chest to buy an election. 
The bill will not work without Part 2. It is important to deal with the issue of data matching. It is important to be able to match details of departures from New Zealand with arrivals. It is important that those people with student loan obligations get the message from Part 2 that the House is serious and that there is a determination to make this work. There are all the protections that are needed to protect the privacy and rights of individuals because access to the data is limited and for a specific purpose. It is fair and the protections are reassuring. Again I think Part 2 reflects the excellent work done by the Education and Science Committee in preparing the bill to come back to the House. 
In that regard I would like to join my colleague Colin King in paying tribute to the officials of the Inland Revenue Department. On the Education and Science Committee we deal with so much woolly stuff particularly in the education sector—less so in the science sector—and it is very very frustrating to sit there week after week trying to get to the nub of an issue and trying to get officials to get straight to the point and get rid of the “if onlys” the “buts” and “on the other hands” and all the rest of it. To be working with officials who got straight to the point were clear precise exact and unequivocal was certainly—for me—most refreshing. If that sort of culture and attitude could be inculcated in some of the other ministries we find ourselves dealing with on that select committee that would be refreshing as well.
Donnelly Brian: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8233] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 There is a slightly unfortunate assumption that all of these students who are going off overseas are university graduates but of course that is not the case. Many of these students going off are at the other end of the tertiary education spectrum. They may be people for example who have dropped out of year 12 of their schooling because they are not having great success there and they have gone off to their local polytech and done an acting course or something have not necessarily completed it and have ended up with a $10000 student loan. We have to recognise that people with student loans are not all professional graduates who can possibly go across to England and get some pretty good money. That is the first thing. 
This part is the second part of the quinella and it actually makes the whole thing work. It works for all parties; it works for the Government the taxpayers and the Inland Revenue Department. It ensures that we do not have people taking off overseas with no one knowing they are there so they are not paying any interest because it is assumed that they are still in New Zealand. It is fair on the taxpayer that the provisions for those who go off overseas are in fact applied to those people who go off overseas. But the provisions are also an advantage to those who go off overseas and inadvertently do not realise that they are leaving obligations behind them. We had a submission through the Education and Science Committee from someone who had done exactly that and who thought that the income limits that applied in New Zealand also applied when someone was off overseas. Unfortunately that person came back to a very hefty loan. 
So New Zealand First believes that data matching is essential and certainly through the select committee process we questioned very very hard to make sure that it was to be used for only the purpose it should be used for. The provision for data matching is very tight and I think everyone recognises that it is tight and that there is no opportunity for the information to be used for a variety of other reasons. In fact the select committee went so far as to check out what would happen with the information once a person was back in New Zealand and had paid off his or her loan. There was an expectation and a principle explained to us that the records would then be destroyed. Certainly New Zealand First members believe it is only fair and reasonable that information used for the purpose it is needed to be used for should then no longer be kept and be open to misuse. However we believe it is necessary to have this particular measure if we want to have the whole system to operate. Therefore we believe as I say that it is the second part of the quinella and without this part we do not get the big prize that we are aiming for out of this legislation.
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:638;Page:8223] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:638;Page:8223] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
[Volume:638;Page:8193] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Your decision is being relitigated but of course it is not beyond the competence of this House to debate the matter. Firstly the member had the right to and did seek leave and that was declined but more important there is now a general debate. I have to point out to Mr Brownlee that the word “miscellaneous” does not mean necessarily “minor” or “unimportant”. It just means that various matters can be raised under that particular provision. In the case of Whangamata it related to a specific ministerial decision around Whangamata. If one wanted to debate the decision to delegate that should have been done in 2003 when it was made. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contributions and for the further comments they have made on my ruling. I would also note that yes it was a matter of ministerial responsibility in the case that the member referred to.
McCully Murray: Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
McCully Murray: Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
[Volume:638;Page:8192] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to ask you to consider giving us say a considered ruling on this matter because I accept as you have indicated to the House that court decisions do not generally trigger a debate of themselves. But here we have a decision of the court that cancels a contract of half a billion dollars that has been written with public money and that has involved public officials. It seems to me that some issues arise around that situation and it would assist members if you would be prepared to consider addressing it in a considered ruling. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I thank members for their comments. I have given this serious consideration and I have had an opportunity to do so for some time as the matter was raised yesterday when leave was given for an urgent question. However the fact remains that it is not a matter of ministerial responsibility. As Speaker I am governed by the Standing Orders as well as Speakers’ rulings and I try to follow them so that it provides certainty in the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. I have ruled on this matter and I am not taking any further debate and discussion. I have given it full consideration. I have ruled consistent with the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It has to be a different one Mr Brownlee.
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
[Volume:638;Page:8191] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that the actual issue in relation to the narrow technicality is quite clear in terms of declining the ruling. But of course even in so doing this does not prevent the House from debating the matter as we are about to enter upon a general debate and it would not at all surprise me if members opposite choose to debate that issue as part of the general debate.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
[Volume:638;Page:8191] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 If this particular issue is to be classified as “miscellaneous” material which is the subject of the general debate according to our Standing Orders—a general debate is held each Wednesday on “miscellaneous” matters—it seems to me hardly to be one of those in a range of matters that might ordinarily come up in a general debate. This is a matter of extreme public importance and I seek leave for this House to debate this matter according to the letter set out by the Hon Tony Ryall immediately. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
[Volume:638;Page:8191] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This has to be an extraordinary ruling on your part. Although you may well say that it is a result of a ruling by a court the fact is that there is at least the very significant potential for tens of thousands of New Zealanders to have their health care disrupted because of this particular situation. There is ministerial responsibility here because the district health boards report to the Minister. The district health boards are not themselves allowed to have a public view if it is inconsistent with what the Minister would want them to say. We have been through that many times in this House. In this case I think that the people of Auckland—the overwhelming majority of the people in this population—deserve to have Parliament express a view on what is most certainly a debacle as far as the management of their health care is concerned. I ask you Madam Speaker—and you must accept that we do not do this in normal circumstances; we normally do accept your rulings—to reconsider some of the advice that you have clearly been given on this matter. This is of huge public importance.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
[Volume:638;Page:8191] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Tony Ryall seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the High Court’s judgment on the contract for community laboratory services in Auckland. The particular case here is the High Court judgment. It is well established that a judgment of a court does not give grounds for a debate under Standing Order 380 as there is no ministerial responsibility for it—members can see Speakers’ rulings 162/3 for an example. The application is therefore declined.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8183] 
7.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Has she received any recent reports regarding the effectiveness of the Employment Relations Act 2000? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Actually I have. I have recently received a report measuring work stoppages under the Employment Relations Act compared with those under the Employment Contracts Act. It shows that the average rate of work stoppages has dropped by 20 percent under the Employment Relations Act. The average rate of working days lost has halved and wage losses have dropped by 48 percent—and that does not even take into account the fact that many more New Zealanders are employed today than in the 1990s. Those results have been achieved because the Employment Relations Act is both fair and balanced. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has she seen any other reports concerning the Employment Relations Act? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. I have seen a number of reports proposing radical changes to the Employment Relations Act that would destroy the successful balance that exists in the current legislation and take us back to the failed conflict-ridden regime of the past. Those proposals are being put up by the National Party which seems to be still in denial about the success of the Employment Relations Act.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8179] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table two papers in relation to question No. 2. The first one is the page from Land Transport New Zealand’s manual that sets out the values that must be used in terms of travel time for different purposes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Dominion Post 
 this morning about a rail commuter who has added up the cost to rail commuters of time lost standing on a station watching full trains go past without stopping. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8178] 
4.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports if any has she received about recent police station developments? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 [ 
Interruption 
] Madam Speaker I think we are on to police now and not on to Gerry Brownlee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please settle and have the courtesy to allow other members to be heard. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Last Friday I officially opened the new Manukau Police Station. An investment of $13 million in stage one of a two-stage development will result in enhanced community safety for South Auckland people. It is a 24-hour hub and is centrally sited in the police district. A state-of-the-art underground prisoner-transfer tunnel has been built between the new station and the District Court. The police think this will help to make the escorting of prisoners more safe. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other reports has she seen about recent New Zealand police station developments? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I know that the member will be very interested that last Thursday I officiated at the sod turning for the new $15.4 million Gisborne Police Station. The current station was built in 1966. The new site is an improved location in the central business district. Members might be interested to know that the Manukau hub was the 31st new or refurbished police station built under this Labour-led Government. This follows the decade of the 1990s when National as usual allowed police facilities to be run down—and that was along with its plan to reduce police numbers by 500. 
Ron Mark 
: Could the Minister give the House a progress report on the Government’s plans to recruit front-line officers to fill these new police stations and how we are progressing that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The police are on track to recruit 1000 more police officers over 3 financial years in line with the confidence and supply agreement that Labour has with New Zealand First. Besides steady ongoing recruitment a factor that is greatly assisting the police is that the sworn police attrition rate is 3.9 percent—the average attrition rate for a medium to large company is around 13 percent. As of March 2007 there has been an increase in sworn staff members of 423 and that is not including recruits at the Police College. That increase was since March 2006. This equates to a 5.7 percent increase.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Republic of Poland—Speaker and Deputy Speaker; Speaker’s Delegation 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Republic of Poland—Speaker and Deputy Speaker; Speaker’s Delegation 
[Volume:638;Page:8173] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much please in informing members that His Excellency Mr BogdanBorusewicz Speaker of the Senate of the Republic of Poland and Mr JanuszDobrosz Deputy Speaker of the Sejm are within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure members would wish that they be welcomed and accorded seats. I am sure that members would also wish to welcome the members of the Speaker’s delegation who are present in the gallery. 
Mr BogdanBorusewicz and Mr JanuszDobrosz entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Visitors — Republic of Poland—Speaker and Deputy Speaker; Speaker’s Delegation 
Visitors — Republic of Poland—Speaker and Deputy Speaker; Speaker’s Delegation 
[Volume:638;Page:8173] 
Wednesday 21 March 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Republic of Poland—Speaker and Deputy Speaker; Speaker’s Delegation 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much please in informing members that His Excellency Mr BogdanBorusewicz Speaker of the Senate of the Republic of Poland and Mr JanuszDobrosz Deputy Speaker of the Sejm are within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure members would wish that they be welcomed and accorded seats. I am sure that members would also wish to welcome the members of the Speaker’s delegation who are present in the gallery. 
Mr BogdanBorusewicz and Mr JanuszDobrosz entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9311] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thank the Rt Hon Winston Peters for giving me a lead on the discussion and I seek clarification around the issue I raised earlier. I did not want to interrupt the member again but as I understand it the role of the interpreters in this House is to translate-cum-interpret discussions in te reo Maori. Their role is not to give pronunciation lessons. Thus the reason I stood was simply to help members of the House; it was not to be disrespectful to anyone in particular. 
I seek the leave of the House simply to recognise that the bill is an important bill—it is an important discussion—and I make a stand by seeking leave to give the correct pronunciation for five names only. In light of that which is a little bit different from the explanation provided by Mr Peters I seek leave again that the question be put— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I just want to check that the member has finished his point of order. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I made the point that no disrespect is intended. It is just to clarify points. I also want to make sure that the integrity of our translators is not put aside in the sense that I am fairly sure that their position is simply to provide translations not pronunciation lessons.
Brown Peter: New Zealand Day Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: New Zealand Day Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9337] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 This bill went to the select committee as members have just told the House and it was recommended that it does not proceed. New Zealand First shares that view. We thought the select committee got it exactly right. But go back a few years—we just had a history lesson from Mr Finlayson a little while ago— 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9331] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 57 
Anderton (P) 
Coleman (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Auchinvole   
Collins (P) 
Key (P) 
Tolley  
Bennett D (P) 
Cullen (P) 
King C (P) 
Tremain (P) 
Bennett P (P) 
Dalziel  
Mapp (P) 
Wagner  
Benson-Pope (P) 
Dean  
Mark (P) 
Wilkinson   
Blue  
Donnelly (P) 
McCully (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Blumsky  
Dunne  
Paraone (P) 
Wilson  
Brown  
Finlayson   
Parker (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Burton (P) 
Foss (P) 
Peachey  
Carter D (P) 
Goff (P) 
Peters (P) 
Carter J (P) 
Goodhew (P) 
Power  
Chadwick (P) 
Goudie (P) 
Roy H 
Chauvel (P) 
Groser  
Ryall (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Hawkins (P) 
Simich (P) 
Clark (P) 
Henare  
Smith L (P) 
Teller: 
Clarkson   
Hide  
Stewart  
Guy  
Noes 64 
Ardern (P) 
Fitzsimons   
Mackey  
Soper (P) 
Barker  
Flavell  
Maharey (P) 
Street  
Barnett (P) 
Gallagher   
Mahuta (P) 
Swain (P) 
Borrows (P) 
Gosche  
Mallard (P) 
Tanczos (P) 
Bradford (P) 
Harawira   
Moroney 
te Heuheu (P) 
Brownlee (P) 
Hartley (P) 
O’Connor   
Tizard (P) 
Carter C 
Hayes  
Okeroa (P) 
Turei 
Connell (P) 
Heatley (P) 
Pettis (P) 
Turia  
Copeland   
Hereora  
Pillay  
Turner (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Rich (P) 
Wong (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Worth (P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Hutchison (P) 
Robertson (P) 
Yates (P) 
Dyson (P) 
Jones (P) 
Roy E 
English (P)  
Kedgley (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Fairbrother (P) 
King A 
Shanks (P) 
Fenton  
Laban (P) 
Sharples   
Teller: 
Field (P) 
Locke  
Smith N (P) 
Hughes
Peters Winston: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Peters Winston: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9311] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I just say to my colleague that that was a very generous offer he made but there are variations in pronunciation and given that the biggest population of Maori in this country comes from Ngapuhi it should be my colleague Dover Samuels who is asked to give that interpretation. Those are the problems we have. But I really have nothing against my colleague from the Maori Party giving us as he said a lesson which he also described as not being the job of the translators. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is correct. It is not the job of the translator. But leave is sought for what the member asked for. He has a right to put that again. Is there any objection? There is.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9310] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou te Whare. I raise this point of order because it is about an issue that is likely to come up in other speeches this evening. With no disrespect to Mr Tisch’skorero—I did not interrupt him because he was into his flow—I am suggesting that in this particular bill Maori names are likely to be a part of the discussion that will take place tonight. I noted that Mr Tisch in his speech pronounced eight to 10 Maori names. For the purpose of us as a House taking a lead in respect of the pronunciation of Maori words I seek leave of the House to simply give a lead on the correct pronunciation of five place names of this country in the Maori language. That will assist all members of the House as we debate this particular bill in the knowledge that those names are likely to come up again during the course of this debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Well the member can seek leave for anything he wants; obviously that is a matter for the House’s decision. I would just say that we have had a discussion on this matter previously. I will put that leave. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:639;Page:9308] 
Voting 
Correction 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I have now had a chance to consult with the whips and I again seek the leave of the House to record my vote on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. That will be so recorded. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: My vote is against. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you.
Copeland Gordon: Voting — Correction 
Copeland Gordon: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:639;Page:9308] 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I have now had a chance to consult with the whips and I again seek the leave of the House to record my vote on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. That will be so recorded. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: My vote is against. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you.
Copeland Gordon: Points of Order — Votes—Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill 
Copeland Gordon: Points of Order — Votes—Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:639;Page:9306] 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 The important thing from my point of view is to try to get my vote registered. If the course outlined by Darren Hughes would help me to achieve that goal then I would be happy to defer the matter and seek leave in a few minutes’ time after I have had the chance to talk to Darren and other whips. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member can seek leave at any time.
Points of Order — Votes—Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill 
Points of Order — Votes—Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:639;Page:9306] 
Points of Order 
Votes—Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to record my vote on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member can seek leave. Is there any objection? 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I have not had a chance to talk to Mr Copeland or to other party whips. I am not sure whether there has been an arrangement on this matter and I am not quite sure what the effect of this is. It would be useful perhaps if we could start Mrs Chadwick’s bill and maybe have a discussion with Mr Copeland and the whips to work out— 
Peter Brown 
: Be reasonable Darren! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I am very reasonable. I am very happy to accommodate this but I am just trying to work out what the state of play is. I was not in the House before dinner and I am not quite sure what— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member does have the right to seek leave. I ask the member whether he wants to speak to that? 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 The important thing from my point of view is to try to get my vote registered. If the course outlined by Darren Hughes would help me to achieve that goal then I would be happy to defer the matter and seek leave in a few minutes’ time after I have had the chance to talk to Darren and other whips. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member can seek leave at any time.
Copeland Gordon: Points of Order — Votes—Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill 
Copeland Gordon: Points of Order — Votes—Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:639;Page:9306] 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to record my vote on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member can seek leave. Is there any objection?
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Votes—Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill 
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Votes—Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:639;Page:9306] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I have not had a chance to talk to Mr Copeland or to other party whips. I am not sure whether there has been an arrangement on this matter and I am not quite sure what the effect of this is. It would be useful perhaps if we could start Mrs Chadwick’s bill and maybe have a discussion with Mr Copeland and the whips to work out— 
Peter Brown 
: Be reasonable Darren! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I am very reasonable. I am very happy to accommodate this but I am just trying to work out what the state of play is. I was not in the House before dinner and I am not quite sure what— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member does have the right to seek leave. I ask the member whether he wants to speak to that?
Barnett Tim: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Barnett Tim: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9306] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Just for clarification I tell the House that Labour holds a proxy but not for this vote. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Barnett. 
Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hide Rodney: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9305] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that it is important to check that no one is carrying a proxy for Mr Copeland. It seems odd for someone to resign from his party over an issue and then not to vote. I am sure a proxy is being held. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank Mr Hide for raising that. Those who are in the House are in the House and the proxy has not been exercised.
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9305] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 4 (Brown Donnelly Stewart Woolerton); Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1. 
Noes 8 
New Zealand First 3 (Mark Paraone Peters); United Future 1 (Turner); ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Bill read a third time.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Statements — Gordon Copeland— Resignation from United Future 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Statements — Gordon Copeland— Resignation from United Future 
[Volume:639;Page:9284] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received the following letter dated 16 May 2007 and addressed to the Hon Margaret Wilson Speaker of the House of Representatives c/o the Office of the Clerk Parliament Buildings: “Dear Madam Speaker I write to advise that I have today resigned from the United Future party but will stay in Parliament as an independent member. [Standing Order 34/4]. Yours sincerely Gordon Copeland MP.”
Speaker’s Statements — Gordon Copeland— Resignation from United Future 
Speaker’s Statements — Gordon Copeland— Resignation from United Future 
[Volume:639;Page:9284] 
Speaker’s Statements 
Gordon Copeland— Resignation from United Future 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received the following letter dated 16 May 2007 and addressed to the Hon Margaret Wilson Speaker of the House of Representatives c/o the Office of the Clerk Parliament Buildings: “Dear Madam Speaker I write to advise that I have today resigned from the United Future party but will stay in Parliament as an independent member. [Standing Order 34/4]. Yours sincerely Gordon Copeland MP.”
King Annette: General Debate 
King Annette: General Debate 
[Volume:639;Page:9271] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I seek leave to table that email from a serving police officer which states that Mr Idour is a man well known for his ownership of and constant reference to pornographic material. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
English Bill: General Debate 
English Bill: General Debate 
[Volume:639;Page:9271] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will pull back from the point of order. I was just worried that you were not going to sit that speaker down.
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Urgent Questions Questions to Ministers 
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Urgent Questions Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9268] 
11.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Will he be seeking to strengthen legislation to further restrict internet gambling websites such as RaceO as part of his review of the Gambling Act? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: The intention of the review of the Gambling Act is to identify and address any anomalies or deficiencies in the Act. The issue of websites such as RaceO will be included in this work. 
Sue Bradford 
: When the Minister advised the House on 27 February of this year that the Department of Internal Affairs would finish its investigation into RaceO in 4 weeks did he envisage that I would still be able to place a bet on RaceO today 16 May and why exactly has nothing happened? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: My advice is that the work began on the day the website was identified in order to investigate its legal status in New Zealand. As the member will know the legislation actually refers to the question of operating remote interactive gambling in New Zealand and also prohibits anyone in New Zealand from advertising or promoting overseas-based gambling. The issue here and the reason why the investigation has taken longer than the anticipated month is that some of the key principals reside outside New Zealand. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister then suggesting that the Government is powerless to stop internationally based gambling websites like RaceO from taking the proceeds of gambling offshore and exposing vulnerable New Zealanders to all the problems associated with gambling at the same time that we are losing control of resources that might help mitigate some of the worst consequences of gambling? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No what the Government is saying is that there is still an investigation going on so we do not know the answer to that question. Obviously the intention of the review of the Gambling Act is to address any anomalies or deficiencies that arise during this investigation as well as in the wider review. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will there be legislation this year that will address some of the key flaws of the current Gambling Act and will the legislation include such things as taking the distribution of pokie money out of private hands and putting it into publicly accountable mechanisms and for example subjecting casinos to the Proceeds of Crime Act in situations where fraudulently obtained money is gambled away? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am advised that the Minister does expect a bill to be ready for introduction later in the year. I think that we have to await the result of the review before we speculate on what it will contain.