edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2785] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With the greatest of respect it is not a matter of you waiting around for a press conference for the member to make that allegation; he has made it right in front of you right now and that is totally unacceptable. Unless he withdraws and apologises for what was a clear threat by inference or by any other way then he should be removed from this House. He is meant to be a senior member of the National Party. He is in fact No. 2 and is his party’s spokesman in the House on the House’s order. He cannot get away with doing that. I have never seen anybody make that sort of allegation and get away with it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What I heard Mr Brownlee say was that he was not making that allegation but it was a possibility that there would be a press conference. If I misheard I apologise to the member. I accept his word that he has not made that allegation.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2784] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is with some disappointment that I wish to announce to this House that we will hold a press conference later this afternoon to fully explain our position because this is the most serious loss of opportunity for us that the Chair has ever denied— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to do that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —and I am afraid Madam Speaker that it will lead to a suggestion that there is collusion between the Government and the Speaker to prevent this matter being discussed in Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Brownlee but if you make that allegation you had better have the evidence to prove it; otherwise it is a very serious matter. [ 
Interruption 
] You have intimated that that is maybe what you would do. All I am saying to you is that if you do you must be prepared to back it up with evidence. There was no collusion with anyone in the making of this decision.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2784] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker.  
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on this matter Mr Brownlee. The debate is actually becoming repetitious so if you wish to remain in the House you will allow the House to move on. I call on Government order of the day No. 1.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2784] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have not challenged your ruling. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Brownlee but everything I have heard is a challenge even though you are not saying you are challenging it. There is nothing more to be said on this matter. I have ruled. I want now for the Government’s business to continue with Government order of the day No. 1.
Key John: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
Key John: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2784] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the matter and if the member wishes to continue on this matter I will rule his point of order out of order. If it is an entirely new matter that is appropriate but I will rule the member out of order if he continues the debate on my ruling. 
JOHN KEY 
: Madam Speaker I am not attempting to challenge your ruling. I understand your ruling but I would like to raise a different element of that ruling which is that my colleague Mr English rightfully raised the issue of this being of significant importance. If one is to think through what occurred on this particular occasion one will see that this was an action that was brought forward on the part of the Government because the leak of itself breached the stock exchange rules. If the company itself had not rung the Minister’s office and simply gone public with this information it would have been demanded and required to do that because of the stock exchange. That would have been an issue of unparalleled importance to the New Zealand financial markets. If this information came from the Minister’s office that Minister could not survive in Cabinet. These are the rules that establish and control the financial markets of New Zealand and—not wishing to challenge your ruling—you are telling the Opposition today that this is not a matter of importance. Yet the very rules that drive our stock exchange were breached. It cannot be a matter that is not important. It simply must be. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. We are starting to relitigate but I appreciate his comments. I have considered all the matters very seriously consistent with the rules of the Standing Orders and previous Speakers’ rulings. I now call on Government order of the day No. 1.
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2784] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 My point is simply this. That argument that was put to you by Mr Williamson is totally refuted by the facts of the Australian share market which was trading after the New Zealand announcement. It was there that the share market saw a change in the shares not on the basis of the leak. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member.
Williamson Maurice: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
Williamson Maurice: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2783] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this in most serious terms because you have to make a judgment about how important an issue is and whether it deserves the attention of the House. I have been in this House for nearly 20 years and I have never seen an event that has had such a dramatic impact on the value of New Zealand’s biggest company. That is clear. I have a press statement that came out just before lunchtime that states that $1.1 billion—not million but $1.1 billion—had been wiped off the value of one of New Zealand’s biggest companies a company in which a lot of ordinary New Zealanders hold shares. If that is not a very important issue that was sparked by the leak and the scurry to sort it out then I simply do not know of anything of that magnitude that has occurred in this Parliament during my time. I ask you to reflect on that and on whether you have seen anything bigger that was caused by the actions of a leaked document and by officials running round and Ministers releasing stuff so that by this morning Telecom’s share price dropped below the $5 mark. I believe that is the biggest ever implication I have seen from such an action. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That was certainly one of the factors I took into account. Is there anything further? I have ruled on this matter.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2783] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think you should in any way underestimate our surprise at not getting this snap debate. I think it would be useful—given the very very considered views put by the Hon Bill English and your consequent response suggesting that you had personally spent a lot of time thinking about this particular issue—and not too much to ask for you to tell us why you think Parliament should not be able to express a view on the very very serious leak of a Budget document that we know was held by only Ministers and three officials. Clearly there is a major problem here. The Government has to deal with it but Parliament must surely be able to express a view. If that is not to be the case and that is your ruling then perhaps it would be fair to give us more reason for that view than simply that you do not consider it appropriate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have judged the matter in terms of both the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. I have balanced the factors and I have made the decision consistent with the way in which the rulings are given.
English Bill: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
English Bill: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2783] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you very much.
Turia Tariana: Tabling of Documents — Question No. 6 to Minister 
Turia Tariana: Tabling of Documents — Question No. 6 to Minister 
[Volume:630;Page:2783] 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the document I referred to today which shows that Maori women are more likely to experience a delay of longer than 6 months in relation to cervical screening. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Goff Phil: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
Goff Phil: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2783] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] Not only has Bill English interrupted again when I started my point of order but he interrupted you before. But the point of order I am raising is quite separate. He challenged your decision and suggested that you had been leaned on in making that decision. That is grossly out of order and I think action should be taken against that member.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2783] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear the comment but if the member said that would he please withdraw and apologise. I personally considered this matter very seriously. I certainly understand that the member thinks seriously about it but I have to judge all factors and that is what I did as Speaker—not as Chair of the House but as Speaker. Would the member please withdraw and apologise if he made that comment on my impartiality.
Tabling of Documents — Question No. 6 to Minister 
Tabling of Documents — Question No. 6 to Minister 
[Volume:630;Page:2783] 
Tabling of Documents 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the document I referred to today which shows that Maori women are more likely to experience a delay of longer than 6 months in relation to cervical screening. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
English Bill: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
English Bill: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2782] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to debate according to the speaking times of a snap debate the matter of the leak of a commercially sensitive Budget document regarding Telecom New Zealand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Debate interrupted.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2782] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not think I need to hear any more and I thank members for their comments. I want to assure members I did consider the matter very seriously. I did look at  
Speakers’ Rulings  
and I did seek advice and my decision stands.
English Bill: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
English Bill: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2782] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 The Government has sought to introduce the notion of its own inquiry into this debate and I think it would find that that is counter-productive. What the executive chooses to do about that is of no interest to this Parliament. The decision about this debate hinges entirely on its importance to this Parliament. I submit to you Madam Speaker that the fact the Government has initiated an inquiry and has taken the issue so seriously underlines the fact that this is a matter of great public importance and deserves urgent consideration. Only Ministers and three officials had that piece of paper so the Minister I think has lent weight to my case. He has made it clear that the Government is taking the matter seriously. The Government has initiated a wide-ranging inquiry into it and if you took that into account you would almost certainly take the view that this is a matter sufficiently important to debate. I ask you to reflect Madam Speaker on other issues that have been regarded as sufficiently important to warrant debate: conduct of Ministers on issues that have affected a handful of people—nothing nearly as significant and large-scale as this leak or its consequences. So if the Government wants to make the point that it is holding an inquiry that simply underlines how important it is that Parliament gets a full opportunity for debate. 
The Minister also said that other parliamentary occasions are available. Actually they are not. There is no opportunity for a parliamentarian to speak for 10 or 15 minutes on this issue—none. That of course is why we have these debates because the matters are so serious they warrant extended debate and thorough debate. Otherwise we just put everything off to the 5-minute speeches of the general debate.
Burton Mark: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
Burton Mark: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2782] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think firstly Madam Speaker that the member did indicate in the latter part of his comment that of course the ruling you have made is your province and I think it is important that we acknowledge that. Secondly I think the point you made in the course of your ruling that is of significance here is that there will be appropriate parliamentary opportunities to debate this matter. Thirdly Madam Speaker in the course of question time it has been made clear to all members that there is an inquiry under way. 
Hon Bill English 
: That has got nothing to do with this. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please allow the Minister to complete his statement in silence. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: At that point Madam Speaker the substance of the matter will be clear to all and sundry when the report is issued. In the meantime you have made a ruling and it is up to members of the House to observe that in an appropriate manner.
English Bill: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
English Bill: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2781] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am just trying to work out the right words for this but I find your decision extraordinary. The conduct of the executive and its accountability to this Parliament are always matters of importance. This particular circumstance where the event on which I am seeking a debate is unprecedented in its significance and in its breach of proper process by the executive and those advisers who serve it must be a matter of importance to this Parliament. When I consider the debates that have been accepted by previous Speakers and by yourself I think that any number of them—in fact I think almost all of them—are of lesser significance than the context of executive accountability to Parliament the subject of this debate. The effect of your ruling is to say that a Minister may have chosen to leak that document deliberately which could have led to major shifts in the value of New Zealand’s biggest company but that that is not sufficiently important for this Parliament to debate it. The fact here is that it is not the consequences of the leak that are of vital interest; it is rather that the executive is conducting itself in a way that undermines good government and in a way that Parliament naturally takes as a matter of serious accountability. 
You have accepted that the debate meets two criteria: it is a recent occurrence and it involves ministerial responsibility. I seek in the interests of accepting the ruling further elaboration on why this matter lacks importance because that is what you are saying. You are saying that this matter is not important enough for Parliament to debate which is the third leg of the test. I have to say after 16 years of listening to Speakers’ rulings on these matters in Parliament I am gobsmacked.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
[Volume:630;Page:2781] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Two members have challenged my word and I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that I actually sought to table several documents yesterday. I have checked back through the records and those tablings were either denied or accepted. The other point I wish to raise is that my word has been further questioned in respect of the issue today of the civil defence ministry. I wish to inform the House that Newstalk ZB advised me this morning that it had attempted to phone the ministry—that it had attempted to phone it several times between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m.—and it also informed me that it had attempted to phone the Minister directly and had received no response. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2781] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Bill English seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the leak of a commercially sensitive Cabinet document relating to the telecommunications stocktake. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of Government but I do not consider it a matter of sufficient importance to require the House to set aside its pre-arranged business. The test is a high one. This may be a sensitive matter but in itself it lacks the exceptional policy substance necessary to justify the urgent attention of the House. There are other parliamentary opportunities in which this matter can be examined. The request is therefore declined.
Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
[Volume:630;Page:2780] 
Points of Order 
Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise it under Standing Order 400(b). Earlier Dr Nick Smith told the House that he had not tabled a document requested by Winston Peters because he thought he had been denied leave. Every member in this House knows that when one is granted leave one is approached by a messenger who asks for the document. Yesterday we observed Dr Smith being asked for the document after he was granted leave. I therefore ask you Madam Speaker to consider whether Dr Nick Smith has deliberately misled this House by raising that excuse for not doing what he had undertaken to do. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. There are proper ways to raise that matter and that is not one of them. But I also note that I accepted Dr Smith’s word in the House—that his memory was that that document had not been accepted. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect the facts are that Dr Smith sought to table a document. He was then approached obviously by an official of the House as to the tabling of that document. I myself observed that and that is why I raise the issue of his not being prepared to hand that document to the House’s official. He was on notice therefore and his excuse today does not hold up. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I am sorry. If members want to raise that matter there is a proper way to do it and it is not in this House. I ask them to do it in that way. I have also said what my ruling was at the beginning when the matter first arose. But the member is perfectly entitled to raise the matter with me in the appropriate way. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Two members have challenged my word and I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that I actually sought to table several documents yesterday. I have checked back through the records and those tablings were either denied or accepted. The other point I wish to raise is that my word has been further questioned in respect of the issue today of the civil defence ministry. I wish to inform the House that Newstalk ZB advised me this morning that it had attempted to phone the ministry—that it had attempted to phone it several times between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m.—and it also informed me that it had attempted to phone the Minister directly and had received no response. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
[Volume:630;Page:2781] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect the facts are that Dr Smith sought to table a document. He was then approached obviously by an official of the House as to the tabling of that document. I myself observed that and that is why I raise the issue of his not being prepared to hand that document to the House’s official. He was on notice therefore and his excuse today does not hold up.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
[Volume:630;Page:2781] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I am sorry. If members want to raise that matter there is a proper way to do it and it is not in this House. I ask them to do it in that way. I have also said what my ruling was at the beginning when the matter first arose. But the member is perfectly entitled to raise the matter with me in the appropriate way.
Goff Phil: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
Goff Phil: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
[Volume:630;Page:2780] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise it under Standing Order 400(b). Earlier Dr Nick Smith told the House that he had not tabled a document requested by Winston Peters because he thought he had been denied leave. Every member in this House knows that when one is granted leave one is approached by a messenger who asks for the document. Yesterday we observed Dr Smith being asked for the document after he was granted leave. I therefore ask you Madam Speaker to consider whether Dr Nick Smith has deliberately misled this House by raising that excuse for not doing what he had undertaken to do.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
[Volume:630;Page:2781] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. There are proper ways to raise that matter and that is not one of them. But I also note that I accepted Dr Smith’s word in the House—that his memory was that that document had not been accepted.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2777] 
11.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women's Affairs 
: What steps is she taking in response to the proposal in the New Zealand Census of Women’s Participation 2006 to allow the Ministry of Women’s Affairs nomination service to be used by private sector companies interested in women’s appointments to boards of directors? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs) 
: 
 I have asked the Ministry of Women’s Affairs to explore how the success it has achieved in the public sector can be shared with the private sector. I have already informally raised the issue with both the chair and the chief executive of the New Zealand Exchange and I will be exploring ideas with them. My advice is that the nomination service was originally set up in 1979 under a National Government as the women’s appointment file and was then included in the Ministry of Women’s Affairs as the nomination service by another National Government in 1992. I look forward to National members’ support. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister seen the letter to the editor in today’s  
Dominion Post  
that states: “shareholders are legally entitled to have the most qualified people available—regardless of gender—to manage a company’s affairs.”; if so how does she reconcile that with the proposal? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I have and I fully endorse the comments apart from the mistaken reference to management rather than governance. The proposal is about ensuring the businesses concerned know who all of the qualified people are before they select the most qualified to meet the board’s requirements and shareholder expectations. Everyone knows that diversity adds real strength to decision making and that is why I can explore the proposal in the way that I will.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2775] 
9.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing to reduce bullying in schools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Today I announced a new $9.5 million fund to help schools promote positive behaviour and reduce the kind of disruptive behaviour that one sometimes sees in the House. This funding will contribute to our work around eliminating bullying by providing resources and guidance to schools so that they can deal with the impact of disruptive behaviour. The new funding will help ensure that every school is able to provide a safe and productive learning environment for its students. It is part of a wider reducing-violence package to be announced in the Budget. 
Moana Mackey 
: How will this programme improve educational outcomes for students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Disruptive behaviour in schools affects everyone’s learning negatively in some way. Offenders and their classmates do not get a chance to get on with their learning teachers become stressed and the links between school and home can break down. So this initiative will provide additional support for schools to ensure that children with severe behavioural problems can stay in school; better information and resources to ensure that there are good policies and guidelines for every school; a new behaviour screening tool that will help schools identify at an early stage children at risk then act on the issue; and a continuation of Project Early in Christchurch and Auckland. All of those will help deal with disruptive behaviour in our schools. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister agree that the sustainable alleviation of bullying in schools will not be effected by packaged programmes such as Kia Kaha but can be achieved only by the creation of school cultures of physical and verbal non-violence; and how will this funding boost bring about the cultural changes required so that we no longer lead the world in bullying levels as the 1997 third international maths and science study report showed? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member is right. The major change that we want of course is consistency of behaviour across schools that leads to young people not getting themselves involved in disruptive behaviour. But I would add that it is impossible for schools to deliver this on their own; they have the pupils for only 6 hours a day. I think one of the most important things we need to do is say that that culture needs to extend into the home so that the good behaviours that are developed in the school are reinforced there. As I have said a number of times I urge parents to contact their school find out what it is doing and reinforce that same pattern of behaviour in the home.
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2767] 
3.  
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What advice if any has he received on the effectiveness of Tamiflu in the advent of an outbreak of a bird flu pandemic? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: The Minister has received advice from the World Health Organization that Tamiflu is effective in reducing the duration and spread of seasonal influenza illnesses. But until a pandemic virus exists and is identified the efficacy of Tamiflu and its best use will remain unknown. The World Health Organization also advises countries to have reserves of antiviral medication in case of an influenza pandemic and the Government has acted on that advice and has sufficient doses of Tamiflu for 21 percent of the population. 
Tariana Turia 
: What information has the Minister received on the efficacy of the human antiviral medication Tamiflu given reports that it barely alleviates some of the symptoms of the common flu; and therefore what assurance can he give the nation that the same human antiviral medication will be effective in a bird flu pandemic? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Until there is a pandemic of that kind there will not be any definitive answer to that question. But we are taking the best advice we can get from the best clinicians and we have taken every precaution sufficient to and above World Health Organization standards and advice. 
Ann Hartley 
: How are New Zealand efforts to plan for an epidemic viewed in an international context? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am advised they are viewed very well. In fact just this week an article in the  
Harvard Business Review 
 stated that the New Zealand Government’s planning should be used as a guide for all Governments to follow. I quote: “Work to prepare for a pandemic is ongoing and includes not only the Government but also businesses and community groups around the country.” 
Tariana Turia 
: Is the Minister concerned about the claims that a multinational corporate company Gilead Sciences which holds the rights to Tamiflu is well connected in the Bush administration and has a vested interest in promoting the spectre of a looming bird flu pandemic in order to increase its profits; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No I have no information on that and therefore I have no comment to make on it.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
[Volume:630;Page:2763] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the speech made by the Hon George Hawkins in which he said that National had no right to claim credit for the building reforms of the early 1990s and that they were all the work of the Labour Government. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
[Volume:630;Page:2763] 
Points of Order 
Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will recall that yesterday I raised the issue of a member of Parliament making a statement in respect of a document proposed to be tabled then not tabling the document. In this case Dr Nick Smith proposed to table a document in respect of a claim he had made about a prior speech of Mr Hawkins which he said he had a record of. I have had my office check with the staff of the Clerk’s Office to see whether such a document was tabled therefore and thereby verifying what Dr Smith had claimed in the House and to their knowledge no such document was tabled. That is typical of the kind of behaviour I was complaining about yesterday. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 My understanding was that members of the Government objected to my tabling the document but for the benefit of Mr Peters I will be very happy to provide the speech made by Mr George Hawkins claiming that National had no right to claim credit for the building reforms of the early 1990s because they were all Labour’s good work. I am happy to do that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Madam Speaker we were all here yesterday when you put the question and there was no demur from anyone in the House. Now he puts up that lousy excuse for his failing to present the evidence behind his allegation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think we need any more on this. Sometimes with so many members asking to table papers members do forget whether leave in fact was granted. We have heard Dr Smith’s explanation and the fact that he is happy to table them but I will remind members that there is actually no requirement to table a document. The leave of the House permits it but there is no actual requirement that it happen. If Dr Smith were to table it I am sure that would help the House. If Dr Smith would like to seek leave again then we would have the formalities clear. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the speech made by the Hon George Hawkins in which he said that National had no right to claim credit for the building reforms of the early 1990s and that they were all the work of the Labour Government. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
[Volume:630;Page:2763] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Madam Speaker we were all here yesterday when you put the question and there was no demur from anyone in the House. Now he puts up that lousy excuse for his failing to present the evidence behind his allegation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think we need any more on this. Sometimes with so many members asking to table papers members do forget whether leave in fact was granted. We have heard Dr Smith’s explanation and the fact that he is happy to table them but I will remind members that there is actually no requirement to table a document. The leave of the House permits it but there is no actual requirement that it happen. If Dr Smith were to table it I am sure that would help the House. If Dr Smith would like to seek leave again then we would have the formalities clear.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
[Volume:630;Page:2763] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 My understanding was that members of the Government objected to my tabling the document but for the benefit of Mr Peters I will be very happy to provide the speech made by Mr George Hawkins claiming that National had no right to claim credit for the building reforms of the early 1990s because they were all Labour’s good work. I am happy to do that.
Burton Mark: Business of the House 
Burton Mark: Business of the House 
[Volume:630;Page:2763] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I deem it highly unlikely.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Building Industry Reforms—Document Not Tabled 
[Volume:630;Page:2763] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will recall that yesterday I raised the issue of a member of Parliament making a statement in respect of a document proposed to be tabled then not tabling the document. In this case Dr Nick Smith proposed to table a document in respect of a claim he had made about a prior speech of Mr Hawkins which he said he had a record of. I have had my office check with the staff of the Clerk’s Office to see whether such a document was tabled therefore and thereby verifying what Dr Smith had claimed in the House and to their knowledge no such document was tabled. That is typical of the kind of behaviour I was complaining about yesterday.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:630;Page:2763] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the House could indicate to us—noting the long list of work that the House appears to have before it—whether following the staggering success of the Telecom leak the Government is simply going to post the Budget on the Internet to save the House spending a lot of time considering it.
Burton Mark: Business of the House 
Burton Mark: Business of the House 
[Volume:630;Page:2763] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the first reading of the Communications Legislation Bill and the remaining stages of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill the Criminal Procedure Bill the Coroners Bill the Historic Places Amendment Bill the Protected Objects Amendment Bill and the Education Amendment Bill.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:630;Page:2763] 
Thursday 4 May 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the first reading of the Communications Legislation Bill and the remaining stages of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill the Criminal Procedure Bill the Coroners Bill the Historic Places Amendment Bill the Protected Objects Amendment Bill and the Education Amendment Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the House could indicate to us—noting the long list of work that the House appears to have before it—whether following the staggering success of the Telecom leak the Government is simply going to post the Budget on the Internet to save the House spending a lot of time considering it. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I deem it highly unlikely.
Vote: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2597] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Sign Language Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Ayes 119 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Hereora Dave: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Third Reading 
Hereora Dave: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2597] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 Only ACT would oppose the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. I give the audience the assurance that every other party is supporting the bill—only ACT would oppose it. Mr Assistant Speaker it is not often that I get the opportunity to attract a packed audience to hear me speak and through you I want to acknowledge the presence of our audience. Kia ora tatau. 
I take this opportunity to take a very short call in this third reading debate on the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. In doing so I want to extend some acknowledgements. The first is to my colleague Minister Dyson for introducing the bill which carries official recognition of the New Zealand Sign Language and also for fostering the opportunity the fairness and most important I think the participation of the culture of the Deaf community in a way that complements its role in our national identity. 
 I am sure that Justice and Electoral Committee members experienced a unique chance to learn of the many problems obstacles and frustrations that have been experienced by our Deaf community and to learn some sign language. Those members also had the chance not only to realise the difficulties that the Deaf community faces but to appreciate how New Zealand Sign Language has survived and what it has taken for the Deaf community to get to this point. Having been associated with a language that has been suppressed I in some small way understand the implications of that. 
I believe that it is necessary to place on record our tribute to the persistence and dedication of the Deaf community. In doing so I acknowledge the hurt and suffering it has felt. I wonder what the language would be like today had it not been obstructed or suppressed. As we can all imagine when a culture is permitted to grow it manifests the very essence of our national identity. 
The bill represents a significant turning point in our history for the Deaf community and for all New Zealanders. It marks a point of acceptance and inclusion and I say it is about jolly time. Finally I congratulate our Deaf community and again thank our Minister and those members of the select committee.
Turner Judy: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2594] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the third reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. The passage of this bill is an opportunity to celebrate and an opportunity for all Government departments and community organisation to embrace the challenge that this presents to them. 
But first let us celebrate. Let us celebrate the new official status that is conferred on this language today. Let us celebrate the development to date of resources that promote support and teach this vibrant language. And let us celebrate the potential for new and improved opportunities for the Deaf to participate more fully in all that it means to be a New Zealand citizen. 
A favourite book of mine is  
The Politics of Hope 
 by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. At the beginning of the book he summarises his motivation for writing it by saying: “A good society is one that offers its members equal access to hope.” In an early chapter entitled “Language and Violence” he links together the relationship between negative social outcomes and the opportunity language offers us to reverse that. A second chapter is titled “Public Spaces” and in this the author attempts to tease out what it is that binds us together in society and enables us to form lasting associations. Language is always the starting point. This bill therefore represents more than a step forward for the Deaf community; it is also a step forward for all New Zealanders. 
The challenges that the passage of this bill raises are significant and the buck stops fairly with this Government and with successive Governments to fund the capacity-building that must now happen to ensure that a workforce of competent interpreters is built in measurable ways. It is also true that all Government departments need to demonstrate a deliberateness to ensure they consult the Deaf community on issues of inclusiveness and to ensure that services are developed. I suggest that services could be expanded beyond those outlined in this bill. 
This bill is like the starter’s gun going off at the beginning of a race; it starts the journey but there is a distance to be covered before we can ever claim to have run the race on this issue satisfactorily. However those who helped get us to the starting-line are to be congratulated. I mention Minister Ruth Dyson in this regard and all those in the Deaf community who have brought us to this point. The work and the preparation that have led to this moment are fantastic. 
United Future members are therefore thrilled to support this third and final reading. We are thrilled to wish all the very best to all those gathered here in Wellington and around the country who plan some celebrations tonight. I find sign language wonderfully distracting. I have to say that I did try to second-guess someone who was calling out across the House. It was a young man who I think may have been saying: “I hope they hurry up so we can get something to eat and drink.” United Future is very pleased to support this bill.
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2571] 
10.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What human rights issues if any has the Government raised with Chinese Premier WenJiabao during his visit to New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The general matter of human rights was raised in the ministerial discussions this morning. 
Keith Locke 
: What concerns has the Government expressed to the Chinese Premier during his visit regarding protection of the political cultural and religious rights of the Tibetan people? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said the general matter was traversed during discussions this morning. I am not aware—obviously I have not had time to be briefed by the Prime Minister—of any private discussions so far today. 
Keith Locke 
: Did the Government discuss the Iranian nuclear programme with the Chinese Premier and did it agree with him that the best course is dialogue with Iran not threats of sanctions or military actions as being pushed for by the United States? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In the limited time available we traversed issues of more central importance to New Zealand. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why will the Government not come out publicly and call on the Chinese Government to engage in a political dialogue with the Dalai Lama to bring genuine democracy and autonomy for the Tibetan people; is it because this Government is not prepared to do anything—not even to raise our voice on behalf of the Tibetan people—that might ruffle the feathers of the Chinese Government and stand in the way of our craven pursuit of a free-trade deal with China; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Those matters in relation to Tibet have been raised many times with the Chinese Government by the Minister of Foreign of Affairs. We do note that some progress has been made by the Chinese in the civil rights area compared with say 25 years ago. We certainly do believe that a free-trade agreement with China would be in the interests of nearly all New Zealanders.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2570] 
8.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: What action is the Government taking to reduce barriers to information and services currently faced by deaf New Zealanders? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce the third reading and expected passage of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill set down for this afternoon confirming New Zealand Sign Language as an official language. This will represent a significant milestone for the Deaf community which has spent 20 years lobbying for recognition of its language and culture. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How will New Zealand Sign Language reduce the barriers to information and services for deaf New Zealanders? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The immediate practical effect of the bill once passed will be to provide people with the right to use and access New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings including in court. The bill also sets out principles to guide Government departments in their use of New Zealand Sign Language.