edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:640;Page:10759] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes progress will be made on the remaining stages of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill the Wills Bill the Major Events Management Bill and the third readings of the Arbitration Amendment Bill and the Succession (Homicide) Bill. Priority will also be given to any first readings on the Order Paper.
Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill— Leave to Introduce 
Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill— Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:640;Page:10775] 
Points of Order 
Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill— Leave to Introduce 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave for the Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down for first reading as a members’ order of the day despite Standing Orders 276(1) and 277(1). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Points of Order — Auditor-General—Officers of Parliament Committee 
Points of Order — Auditor-General—Officers of Parliament Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10759] 
Points of Order 
Auditor-General—Officers of Parliament Committee 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is one that you may wish to reflect upon and it is with regard to the Officers of Parliament Committee. Under the Public Audit Act 2001 the Auditor-General has certain powers to inquire into the use of resources by any public entity as defined in the Act or its schedules. But he is also required to submit an annual work plan to the Speaker. The question I want you to reflect upon Madam Speaker is whether the annual work plan prepared by the Auditor-General this year included reference to a conflicts of interest register and whether that has been considered by the Officers of Parliament Committee to whom the Auditor-General reports. If that has not been the case will you be convening a meeting of the committee to remind the Auditor-General of his primary role as the auditor of the Government’s books not to be the new Senator McCarthy? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point. As he rightly said I will reflect on it and report back to the House.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:640;Page:10759] 
Thursday 26 July 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes progress will be made on the remaining stages of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill the Wills Bill the Major Events Management Bill and the third readings of the Arbitration Amendment Bill and the Succession (Homicide) Bill. Priority will also be given to any first readings on the Order Paper.
Vote: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10093] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 2; Progressive 1;. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Abstentions 3 
Maori Party 3 (Flavell Harawira Sharples). 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10073] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Social Security Amendment Bill with amendment and the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10073] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Hughes Darren: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10073] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 What a sad position the Hon David Carter finds himself in now that he is reduced in Parliament to being the official spokesperson for Gordon Copeland an Independent member of Parliament. David Carter takes it upon himself to explain Mr Copeland’s position and how he is feeling about the bill in that regard. 
My only reason for taking a call is briefly to put on record in  
Hansard 
 that Mr Carter and consistency were not great friends this evening when he claimed in the Chamber that the Minister Mr Mallard had come to an agreement with Mr Roy on his amendment. That is not correct. I suspect that Mr Carter knows that is not correct and as he has taken his opportunity in his speech to put that claim on the record I want to make sure that no one is under any belief that what he said was correct. It is wrong. He should stick to his new role of speaking on behalf of Mr Copeland on these matters. I think he is much better suited to that than to misrepresenting the position of the Hon Trevor Mallard on these matters.
Carter David: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10072] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 The debate has been well canvassed so I will not take long except to say that it is with great sadness that we note the progress of the Supplementary Order Papers. We thought that we had an agreement with the Minister Trevor Mallard following Eric Roy’s involvement in suggesting Meat and Wool also be involved in the consultation process. It was certainly our understanding that the Minister has agreed to that and I think it is a great shame that that has been lost. 
I take the opportunity of repeating what was said earlier in the Committee in the debate on Part 2. This is a bill to satisfy the Public Service Association (PSA). There is absolutely no doubt about that. Bill Falconer chairman of the Meat Industry Association said to the select committee that the association was first advised of this legislation in June of 2006 not by the Government but by the PSA which requested a meeting with the Meat Industry Association. When that meeting was convened it was the PSA that announced to the Meat Industry Association that a deal had been done with Labour caucus members with Ministers and with the Prime Minister and that the Meat Industry Association had better get used to it. The Meat Industry Association then followed with a letter to the Minister of Agriculture the Hon Jim Anderton requesting a meeting as soon as possible to discuss this issue. Mr Anderton totally refused to meet with the industry. That is how our Minister of Agriculture treated this issue—he refused to meet the industry. 
Next the legislation finally came before the House and it was sent to the Commerce Committee where the Government at that stage thought it had the numbers because Gordon Copeland sat on that committee for United Future. Mr Copeland to his credit listened to the submissions. He knew that this was dangerous because of the costs that would then be imposed on the meat industry. He had a deal done with Mr Mallard again that a Supplementary Order Paper would be tabled that would lessen some of the damage of the legislation—something that would be done in association with the Meat Industry Association and to its satisfaction. When that Supplementary Order Paper was finally produced by the Minister today Gordon Copeland was completely let down. He now regrets that he supported it through the select committee because he knows that this is some of the worst legislation that we have passed on the meat industry since the employment relations legislation and the accident compensation legislation were passed by the Government in its earlier years. 
Suffice to say we will watch with interest as the PSA now has the ability to impose substantially increased charges on our meat producers throughout New Zealand. We will watch that and we will certainly hope we see a responsible union. But on past performance in this industry I do not think that will be the case.
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10072] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Hartley Ann: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10072] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendment a typescript amendment in the name of Gordon Copeland to the new subparts following clause 11 is now out of order as it is inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee.
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10072] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10071] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 120 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert new clauses 13 14 and 15 be agreed to.
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10071] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 120 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert new clause 12 be agreed to.
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10071] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Eric Roy to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 120 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert new clause 12 be agreed to: 
to insert in proposed paragraph (a) of subclause (3) after the words “Meat Industry Association of New Zealand” the words “and Meat and Wool NZ”.
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10071] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 10 be agreed to.
Roy Eric: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10070] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I seek leave after consultation in the Committee that the vote on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper to add new subpart 3 in new clause 12 and the Supplementary Order Paper in my name be taken as separate questions. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper is something of an omnibus measure and there is good reason for us to separate out clause 12 given the way the debate has gone. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is seeking leave for a separate vote on clause 12. Is there any objection? There is not. Leave is granted. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 120 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 5 be agreed to.
Carter David: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10066] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I want to respond to the rather spirited contribution from the Labour member Maryan Street when she objected to my connecting to the New Zealand Public Service Association (PSA) the $850000 that was paid back from the Labour Party— 
Colin King 
: How much was that? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It was $850000 that had been stolen from the taxpayer at the last election. Maryan Street objected to my comment that this was connected. I can do no other than refer to a submission from the Meat Industry Association that came before the select committee. The Meat Industry Association said that it was also alarmed at the role of the PSA. The association was never made aware of the Government’s intention to draft this bill to ensure the amalgamation of these two State-owned enterprises. But in July 2006 according to the Meat Industry Association representatives of the PSA sought a meeting with the Meat Industry Association at which it said that an agreement had been reached between the PSA and the Government regarding meat inspection. I quote: “It was explained that the PSA had secured an assurance from Government to reinstate meat inspection as a service delivered through a single Government entity (that is an Asure monopoly).” 
The Meat Industry Association went on to attach an email that the PSA had sent to its members in June 2006—almost 12 months before the legislation was tabled in this House—stating: “In recent meetings between the PSA Government Ministers the Prime Minister the Food Safety Authority the PSA had been informed that the Government will promulgate Government policy stating meat inspection is to be done only by the Government and delivered by one Government agency Asure.” 
For Maryan Street to suggest that I made it up suggests to me that she sat through the select committee process either with her mind made up or else she was completely asleep because that was the strong representation made by none other than the chair of the Meat Industry Association Bill Falconer one of the most respected men in the New Zealand meat industry. Bill Falconer also said in his submission that he had never been treated more shabbily by a Government in all his time in meat industry politics. So for Maryan Street to come here and suggest that I am at fault for even raising the connection between the PSA and this legislation when that submission came from the Meat Industry Association shows how closed her mind is to the damage that this legislation will do. 
I will not take much more time on this call because I am aware that we have a number of other members who want to speak and who will make excellent contributions. But I just repeat that it was the Meat Industry Association that was informed of this legislation not by the Government but by none other than the PSA almost a year ago to this date.
Street Maryan: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Street Maryan: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10064] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I just want to take a brief call in response to some of the issues raised by David Carter in his speech. In particular I state my very profound objection to the kind of politics that David Carter alluded to. I know farmers are very good at dog whistles and that member is obviously very good at dog whistle politics. But to suggest—to imply—that there was a connection between the Labour Party repaying some money and the appearance of this bill in connection with the Public Service Association (PSA) is a despicable suggestion and it is not worthy of that member. If it is worthy of that member it is not worthy of this House. 
I take absolute exception to what he said on two grounds. Firstly the PSA has never been an affiliated union of the Labour Party. Secondly the political neutrality of the public service is also safeguarded and is an important value of the PSA. If the members opposite find that the PSA does not like them then they have to look at themselves about why that might be the case. To advance their opposition to this bill on those grounds I find reprehensible. If the member sits there and smirks because he is incapable of understanding the critical nature of the point that he implied then there is no hope of the Opposition ever understanding the role of the public service and more than that the role of unions within the public service. I take extreme exception to what he said and this will not be the end of the matter. Thank you.
Finlayson Christopher: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10058] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Having heard that thoughtful and intelligent contribution from Maryan Street I have a question that I would like to ask the Minister. It relates to section 4(1)(a) of the State-Owned Enterprises Act. I think he was the member for Hamilton West when this legislation was passed— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: A member of the select committee. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: He was a member of the select committee. Well he will certainly be able to understand that the principal objective of a State-owned enterprise is to be a successful business. I quote: “(1) The principal objective of every State enterprise shall be to operate as a successful business and to this end to be—(a) as profitable and efficient as comparable businesses that are not owned by the Crown;”. So how is it that when one is talking about competition which means— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You are talking about the next part. You are on the wrong part. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am happy to talk about the interpretation clauses and in particular the board of directors of AgriQuality Ltd which is a State-owned enterprise. This is the fundamental point. It is supposed to operate as though it were a successful business not owned by the Crown. It is doing exactly that. Competition in terms of the Commerce Act is to be workable and effective competition. Where is the problem with State-owned enterprises competing? Mighty River Power Genesis Power and Meridian Energy compete. It is a fundamental point that the Minister really has to address. It was always intended that State-owned enterprises would on occasion compete. Where is the harm in that? If these two State-owned enterprises begin to compete where is the mischief? 
The member who has just resumed her seat said that corners would be cut and there was a risk of negligence. Well that is easily dealt with. If people do not achieve their statutory or other requirements they can be sued. But it seems to me to be an odd situation where legislation passed by a predecessor Labour Government to specifically encourage competition between State-owned enterprises is bypassed in favour of this rather odd legislation. It is a simple point. If the Minister could take a call and address it we could move on. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 120 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 3 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Street Maryan: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Street Maryan: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10058] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 Day after day I come into this Chamber and search for some kind of consistent ideology coming from the Opposition. Finally today I found a sliver of ideology and it is around competition. It is for that reason only not for any sensible reason or practical or common-sense reason that the National Party has chosen to put a minority view in the report of the Commerce Committee and to proceed to oppose this bill. 
The common-sense situation that we find ourselves in when looking at these two existing State-owned enterprises has already been explained. If there were to be competition from AgriQuality for the meat inspection services that Asure New Zealand provides there is likely to be a very substantial contingent liability over redundancies. It would seem to me that if Asure is doing its job adequately—and by all accounts and especially according to its interim report for the 6 months ended 31 March 2007 it is in fact doing extremely well in its job—then there is no need for additional competition to provide alternative services. There has not been nor was there represented at the select committee to my recollection any submission complaining about current costs and cost structures relating to meat inspection fees and services. There was none and there is no reason to believe that that should be any different under this legislation. In other words if members opposite look at Supplementary Order Paper 120 which stands in the name of the Minister they will see that in fact that issue has been covered. 
But it seems to me also that the introduction of competition is wrong on two counts here. First of all what is the sense of having two State-owned enterprises competing with each other? That is an unnecessary waste. The other reason is that quite frequently when competition has been introduced into all sorts of facets of life corners have been cut in order to provide the lowest cost structure. Corners have been cut. 
 This is one area where for a whole raft of reasons corners must never be cut. They must never be cut in order to preserve New Zealand’s reputation in the export market. They must never be cut in order to preserve the integrity and the expectations of Treaty partners such as the UK and the United States with regard to the purchasing of meat products. Further corners should never be cut in the delivery of inspection services that allow for proper tracing of disease or infection. Such cutting of corners would undercut the integrity of our borders and the protections that are required in order to maintain the quality of our product and the reputation amongst our customers that New Zealand currently enjoys. 
The whole purpose of this bill is to avoid unnecessary waste in order to make sure that this slim thread of ideology that the National Party clings to despite all sensible opposition and sensible arguments to the contrary should not prevail and does not apply.
Mallard Trevor: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10055] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 I am happy to do that. The bill went to the Commerce Committee because we have a lot of faith in Gerry Brownlee and his ability to chair and the House made the decision. Members from within parties of course could have substituted from one committee to another if they thought they had the expertise to add value and their whips agreed with them.
Mallard Trevor: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10054] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 Going back to the original point I think the member is making too much of the question of competition in this area now. There is one supplier. It is a State-owned enterprise. In just about every competitor country there is one supplier and that supplier is a Government department. The reason is that people internationally generally—not universally but generally—require meat to be inspected by a responsible Crown agency or a State— 
Hon Members 
: Certified. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes a certified one. But the requirements from the US and from Europe at the moment—at the moment—are that it be a Crown agency. That does not look likely to change because people internationally have seen shonky certification— 
Nathan Guy 
: Not from here. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I accept what the member says. That is why when—and I think it is unlikely the member accepts Supplementary Order Paper 120 in my name—and if there is a shift so that two-thirds of the world accepts private sector certification we will shift and do it. What we are saying is that we should not hold in place an artificial competition that does not exist because there is only one supplier at the moment in this particular area. 
On the Animal Health Board question I tell Mr Roy that every time a contract comes up it attends. That will continue to be the case. There is no change in that area. There is no change if either Asure New Zealand Ltd or AgriQuality Ltd have a contract at the moment; the new company will do it. When it comes to the end of that contract and it is up for tender there will be as there is now private sector competition with it and that will continue to be the case. So frankly— 
Nathan Guy 
: So you support this SOP? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No no; David Carter’s amendment undoes current contracts. His amendment effectively says that Asure has a contract for now but because the companies are going to merge the contract will be taken off it and I just think that is a nonsense.
Roy Eric: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10053] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 This may not be a very long call. I think the Minister in the chair Trevor Mallard raises an interesting point. He says that I may well be prepared to take the risk. At the end of the day the person—the farmer or the supplier—who supplies the product about which this assurance is given does pay the cost. It is a deduction from the product at the end of the day. That is the very point that I wish to represent to the Minister: that in fact it is the farmers the suppliers of the stock who pay at the end of the day and they have a very clear view that they want competition. I tell the Minister that I am not persuaded that this redundancy thing is a huge issue. 
In terms of the meat industry assurance issue these people are sometimes contracted in. They are not all employees of each agency; they operate on fixed contracts. Is that not right? The Minister can respond to that question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No. They are employed by Asure. 
ERIC ROY 
: Well then on the second point of significance the animal health work contracts are let for animal health I think in the vicinity of about $70 million per year now and we must get that down to the prescribed level of 0.002 percent or whatever it is—it is absolutely critical that we do that. This is the second element that I have some significant concerns about: we are reducing away the competitive model of delivering that service and the people out there are contracted. I ask the member to consider the Hon David Carter’s Supplementary Order Paper which says to separate that bit out. If in fact it is an issue that is so significant that it drives the decision-making about the assurance programme under Codex Alimentarius then separate that argument out and look at it as a separate argument for those agencies that are tendering to do the Animal Health Board work in terms of vector control where there is a TB situation. Can the Minister respond and say whether he is prepared to separate that out if in fact it is an issue on the first point?
Mallard Trevor: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10053] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 The answer to the first question is a relatively simple one. When we have two State-owned enterprises with a large workforce in one and competition from the other we have in place a very clear redundancy arrangement. If any significant work shifts from one to the other then tens of millions of dollars in redundancy gets paid. It could well be the case that the same workers end up working for the other company or inexperienced meat inspectors end up working for the other company and the Crown or farmers going forward will bear the cost of that. I think that is not a good cost to bear. 
Eric Roy 
: We will take the risk. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member says he will take the risk. He might want to take the risk with taxpayers’ money; I do not.
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10052] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10052] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10052] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10051] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 114 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10046] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10045] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10045] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10045] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Benson-Pope David:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Benson-Pope David:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10026] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table the  
Hansard 
 from the British Parliament giving the complete quote by Mr Rooney that was used selectively yesterday. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hereora Dave:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10023] 
7.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Has he received any recent reports on the number of Maori enrolled in primary health organisations? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised that as at April 2007 the number of Maori enrolled was 523673 and from July they will benefit even more from this Government’s commitment to make doctors’ visits and prescriptions more affordable. Our investment in primary health care has reduced doctors’ fees by around $27.50 and has lowered standard prescription charges from $15 to $3. 
Dave Hereora 
: Has he received any regional reports of the impact of those investments in primary health care reductions? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I receive reports on a regular basis through the Ministry of Health. I will give some examples of the work that is being done out in the regions that complement the Government’s policies on primary health and the primary health sector. For example the Te Pou Ora o Te Piringatahi Northland primary health organisations’ mental health initiative was basically designed to improve the identification treatment and support of people with mental health and addiction issues in the primary-care setting also to provide better follow-up and coordination for people with mental health and addiction issues in Northland and lastly to promote better understanding and prevention of mental health and addiction issues in that area. I also receive other reports on a regular basis—for example from Ngati Porou Hauora and the University of Otago on their Ngati and Healthy programme which is run through the Tairawhiti District Health Board. To cut a long story short Ngati Porou Hauora was the supreme award winner in the 2006 Whanau Ora awards. I have many other examples here.
Pillay Lynne: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9928] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in support of this Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill. Like Mr Finlayson I will be delighted when it comes to the hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee for scrutiny. 
The essence of the seditious offences outlined in the Crimes Act 1961 is the making or publishing of a statement with a seditious intent. But a seditious intention can range from inciting disaffection against the Queen or the New Zealand Government to inciting lawlessness generally or to inciting “ill will between different classes of people as may endanger the public safety.” I commend the Law Commission for the good work it did in October 2006 on its consultation document on reforming the law of sedition. It then published its report which advocated repeal of sedition law; it came through in March 2007. This Labour-led Government agrees—as do I believe all parties—with the recommendation and sentiments of the Law Commission’s report. 
The heart of the case against having the offence of sedition lies in the protection of freedom of expression particularly of political expression and its place in our democracy. People may hold and express strong and dissenting views and in fact they do. Those views may be both unpopular and unreasonable. But such expressions should not be branded as criminal simply because they involve political opposition to the Government and authority. Where the protection of public order or the preservation of the constitution of the Government are at stake other much more appropriate criminal offences can be used to prosecute such offending behaviour. The offence of sedition as it stands now infringes on the principle of freedom of expression and it has the potential for abuse—a potential that has been realised in some periods of our history which other speakers will outline when it has been used to stifle or punish political speech. In our democracy which we hold dear where the people govern themselves it is hard—in fact impossible—to see how or why speech uttered against the Government should be a crime. That should not be the case in a country that values as we do free speech and that values the ability of people to have their political views and speak them very freely. 
I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill and I commend it to the House.
Burton Mark: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Burton Mark: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9925] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Seditious offences in New Zealand are contained in sections 81 to 85 of the Crimes Act 1961. The offences cover making or publishing a statement that expresses a seditious intention conspiring with a seditious intention and using apparatus for making seditious documents or statements. The offences hinge on there being a seditious intention. That is defined extremely broadly in the Crimes Act. It is an intention to: “(a) bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against Her Majesty or the Government of New Zealand or the administration of justice; or (b) to incite the public or any persons or class of persons to attempt to procure otherwise than by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting the Constitution laws or Government of New Zealand; or (c) to incite procure or encourage violence lawlessness or disorder; or (d) to incite procure or encourage the commission of any offence that is prejudicial to the public safety or to the maintenance of public order; or (e) to excite such hostility or ill will between different classes of persons as may endanger the public safety.” 
In July 2006 I say with some relief the Law Commission was asked to review the seditious offences in the Act and to make any recommendations for reform that were deemed necessary or desirable. The Law Commission in its very thorough report reforming the law of sedition concludes that seditious offences are overly broad and uncertain. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Law Commission for its comprehensive report and to note that the compelling arguments put forward in the report have already attracted deservedly wide support. The Government has considered the Law Commission’s report and has tabled its response when this bill was introduced. This bill is part of that response and it will repeal and not replace sections 81 to 85 of the Act which set out as I mentioned earlier the seditious offences. 
The Government agrees with the Law Commission’s finding that the present law of sedition attacks the democratic value of free speech for no adequate public reason. In addition to the sedition laws being broad and uncertain the meaning of sedition has changed over time. The provisions infringe on the principle of freedom of expression and have the potential for abuse. Specifically the present law falls foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Behaviour covered by the sedition laws that still needs to be criminalised can be more appropriately dealt with by other provisions of the criminal law. Offences relevant to sedition are dealt with in other statutes including the Summary Offences Act other provisions of the Crimes Act and the Terrorism Suppression Act. 
Accordingly I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
Vote: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9925] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That pursuant to sections 10 and 11 of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Professor Linda Jane Holloway DCNZM of Dunedin Dr Rosemary Jane Fenwicke of Wellington and Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch as members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee and appoint Professor Linda Jane Holloway as Chairman of the Supervisory Committee. 
Ayes 102 
Ardern(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
King A 
Smith N (P) 
Auchinvole(P) 
Fenton(P) 
King C 
Soper 
Barker(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Laban(P) 
Street(P) 
Bennett D (P) 
Flavell(P) 
Locke(P) 
Swain (P) 
Bennett P (P) 
Foss(P) 
Mackey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Gallagher 
Maharey(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Blue(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tisch(P) 
Blumsky(P) 
Goodhew(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Borrows(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tolley(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tremain(P) 
Burton 
Groser(P) 
Moroney(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Guy 
O’Connor(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Harawira 
Okeroa 
Turner(P) 
Chadwick 
Hartley(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wagner(P) 
Chauvel 
Hawkins(P) 
Peachey(P) 
Wilkinson 
Choudhary(P) 
Hayes(P) 
Pettis(P) 
Williamson 
Clark(P) 
Henare 
Pillay 
Wilson(P) 
Clarkson(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Power(P) 
Wong(P) 
Coleman(P) 
Hide(P) 
Rich(P) 
Worth(P) 
Connell(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove 
Hodgson(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Cullen 
Horomia 
Roy H 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hughes 
Ryall(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Samuels 
Dunne(P) 
Jones 
Shanks 
Duynhoven 
Kedgley 
Simich 
Teller: 
Dyson(P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Barnett 
Noes 11 
Brown 
English 
Peters(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Finlayson 
Roy E (P) 
Carter J 
Heatley(P) 
Teller: 
Copeland 
Mark(P) 
Collins 
Abstentions 5 
Dean(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
Vote: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9924] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be amended by omitting the words “Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch” and substituting the words “Dr Peter Hall of Whangaparaoa” 
. 
Ayes 29 
Bennett P(P) 
Foss(P) 
Peters(P) 
Wagner(P) 
Borrows(P) 
Goodhew(P) 
Roy E(P) 
Wong(P) 
Carter J 
Guy 
Ryall(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Collins(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Smith L 
Worth(P) 
Copeland 
Key(P) 
Smith N(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Stewart(P) 
English 
Mark(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Teller 
Finlayson(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tremain(P) 
Brown 
Noes 76 
Auchinvole(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
King A 
Simich 
Barker(P) 
Fenton(P) 
Laban(P) 
Soper  
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Locke(P) 
Street(P) 
Blue   
Flavell(P) 
Mackey(P) 
Swain(P) 
Blumsky(P) 
Gallagher   
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tisch(P) 
Burton   
Gosche(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Harawira   
Moroney(P) 
Tolley(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O’Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Chauvel   
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa  
Turia(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hayes  
Parker(P) 
Turner(P) 
Clark(P) 
Henare  
Peachey(P) 
Wilkinson   
Clarkson(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Pettis(P) 
Williamson   
Cosgrove   
Hide(P) 
Pillay  
Wilson(P) 
Cullen   
Hobbs(P) 
Power(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia  
Robertson(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Hughes  
Roy H 
Duynhoven   
Jones  
Samuels  
Teller: 
Dyson(P) 
Kedgley  
Shanks  
Barnett  
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
Vote: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9923] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be amended by omitting the words “Dr Rosemary Jane Fenwicke of Wellington” and substituting the words “Dr Ate Moala of Wellington”.  
Ayes 36 
Ardern(P) 
Copeland 
Mapp(P) 
Turia(P) 
Bennett P 
English 
Mark(P) 
Turner(P) 
Blumsky(P) 
Finlayson(P) 
Peachey(P) 
Borrows(P) 
Flavell(P) 
Peters(P) 
Brown  
Goodhew(P) 
Power(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Groser(P) 
Roy E (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Guy 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J 
Harawira 
Simich 
Clarkson(P) 
Hayes 
Smith N (P) 
Collins(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Henare 
te Heuheu(P) 
Tolley  
Noes 81 
Auchinvole(P) 
Fenton(P) 
Locke(P) 
Swain(P) 
Barker(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bennett D (P) 
Foss(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tisch(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Gallagher   
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Blue  
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tremain(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton  
Goudie(P) 
Moroney(P) 
Wagner  
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
O’Connor(P) 
Wilkinson   
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa  
Williamson   
Chauvel  
Hereora(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hide(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pettis(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Coleman(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pillay  
Worth(P) 
Cosgrove   
Horomia  
Rich(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cullen  
Hughes  
Ririnui(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Jones(P) 
Roy H  
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley  
Samuels(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Key(P) 
Shanks  
Duynhoven   
King A 
Smith L (P) 
Dyson(P) 
King C (P) 
Soper  
Teller: 
Fairbrother(P) 
Laban(P) 
Street(P) 
Barnett  
Amendment not agreed to.