edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:625;Page:20495] 
Business of the House 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That members’ order of the day No. 1 for the first reading of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill be postponed. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a non-debatable motion of course but I wonder whether the member could perhaps give us a brief minute of explanation as to why this should happen given that this bill was New Zealand First’s policy at the last election. The bill has been on the Order Paper for weeks. The member is here but suddenly he is not ready to proceed with the bill. It is a little bit baffling to those on this side of the House that after all this time—three fingers in the air and this is one of them—the member cannot proceed with the bill. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. That is not a point of order. This motion is non-debatable. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I realise that and I do not want to offend against that. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We will be happy to vote for the member if he tells us why. 
Motion agreed to. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make this very clear by way of an explanation. There is a matter on the Order Paper today for example that appeared out of thin air and my party knew nothing as to why. The Privileges Committee report appeared on the Order Paper without being discussed with us. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The explanation is that the Standing Orders provides for that the Clerk has advised. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I thank my colleagues for that vote but I say that I had other things on tonight. I had people here this afternoon whom I needed in respect of this debate. I am sorry that members of the only party in this House to oppose my having leave when they were put to the test tonight did not bother even to open their mouths. They have wasted everybody’s time. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8945] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert new clause 4B be agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19257] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I will make a few comments about this bill. But first I would like to acknowledge as the Minister did the presence of Ngati Awa and to say simply tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa e hoa ma. This is a big day and an important day; the first of two important days for Ngati Awa that bring to a conclusion 140 years of hope and struggle to get recognition for grievance that was conferred in the past and that bring a new beginning as the Minister spoke of. I can only wish Ngati Awa every success from this point on and congratulate them on the structure that they have decided to take on for themselves. I acknowledge and assert that it is time for organisations like this to get out from underneath the shadow of the Government and take control of the destiny that is theirs. Although the Minister gave us the proverb that speaks of the new bird and the new vehicle it is only the vehicle that is new. Everything about Ngati Awa comes from the past and will continue through to the future. The value of that future will be seen in the way in which this bill allows those chosen people to administer the assets of the iwi. 
I wish that some of those sentiments might have been expressed by the Government in the recent fisheries settlement. I think it is appropriate that people who own assets should have hold of them and be able to determine exactly the way in which they are managed and how the benefits will flow on to those who own them. I hope that the sentiments the Minister has expressed today may flow through to other aspects of Government involvement with Maori because it seems to me that there is no group in the country that is as governed as Maori are at the present time. Without going into too much more detail on that—and holding the powder a little for the debate that will take place tomorrow afternoon—I simply say to Ngati Awa that we hope the bill they have approved and that this House has been asked to ratify proves to be a vehicle for success for their future.
Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:6030] 
Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2002/03) Supplementary Estimates Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20291] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 365 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 2 and the following amendment in her name to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the expression “47” and substitute the expression “47(1)”.
Swain Paul: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Swain Paul: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16017] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Barker Rick: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10193] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
I move  
That the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) be considered by the Commerce Committee and that the committee finally report the bill to the House by 26 February 2004. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17355] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 307 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to schedule 2 be agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13145] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Towards the conclusion of the debate on Part 3 on Tuesday night I raised a point of order about the closure motion being accepted by the Chairperson—you were not in the chair. I made the point that a number of Opposition members were seeking the call when the closure motion was moved. The closure motion was accepted and we are not relitigating that fact. But I did make the point and it was accepted by the Chair that when we move to clause 1—which we are about to debate now—fair consideration should be given to those members and to all parties that wish to participate in this debate. I am asking that a fair debate take place on clause 1 “Title” because that was certainly the indication given by the Chairperson on Tuesday evening. I am seeking that you will honour that undertaking. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member for his point of order and I have noted what he said.
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12890] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9875] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Duncan Helen: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Duncan Helen: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6976] 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Fairbrother Russell: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21679] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I welcome the chance to rise in this Parliament at midday on Friday to speak in support of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. I must say that any bill that has been sired by the Hon Rick Barker and wrenched from the loins of Martin Gallagher’s committee has a good pedigree and we can be sure it will perform well on the track of social justice. Those people who are talking about waste of time should reflect upon the hours spent in this Chamber where to quantify would reflect on much productive effort—unlike the very good work of Martin Gallagher and his committee who have delivered to us a bill that this country will look upon finally as being a good piece of social engineering to deliver back into the coffers of the Government that which we deserve. I support the bill.
Stewart Barbara: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14708] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) being referred to the Health Committee. The previous speaker from New Zealand First summed it up very well. As my colleague Peter Brown said New Zealand First has been pushing for this legislation for many years. I think he mentioned the figure of 5 years which is a long time. We are very aware too that many people in New Zealand have been waiting for this legislation particularly those suffering from medical misadventure. Nobody wants to go into hospital for an operation and to come out with another condition that he or she never went in with. 
It is a very important bill. We are looking forward to those people who are affected by the bill having some input at the select committee stage. As my colleague Peter Brown pointed out there are some aspects of the legislation that New Zealand First is most interested in and we want to ensure that this bill is correct. It is a significant bill and the issue is costly for New Zealand so it does need to be correct. We are very aware that there are a number of anomalies in the Act. We are pleased to see too that some of the definitions have been updated in line with other legislation particularly when it comes to the word “accident” where we see that the bill clarifies that twisting movements are now included in the definition of “accident” rather than just the purely vertical physical movements that were in the previous legislation. 
We definitely do not want to see people missing out on compensation when they should be receiving it for medical misadventure. So on behalf of New Zealand First I say that we will be most interested to see this bill come into the select committee process and to ensure that it is correct. We will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee. 
Bill read a first time and referred to theHealth Committee.referred to Health Committee
Hide Rodney: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations 
Hide Rodney: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations 
[Volume:619;Page:14594] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I hope we do agree to give Mr Duynhoven leave but I will make one point. Mr Harry Duynhoven sought to make a statement yesterday. The correct procedure is to correct the answer as soon as possible. I believe he went over to see Dr Michael Cullen who suggested to him that he not do that. He spent 24 hours with the spin doctors trying to work out a correct answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that put like that that is not a point of order. I am prepared to put the question to the House again.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19163] 
11.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What progress has been made on services to ensure that school leavers move successfully from school into work or further education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 Last Thursday I attended the official launch of the Youth Horizons Trust as a lead provider to coordinate services to school leavers in the member’s own Waitakere electorate under the Government’s $27 million Youth Transitions Service programme. Four other Youth Transitions Service regional lead providers have been selected so far. They are in Whangarei Rotorua New Plymouth and Porirua. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Can the Minister identify other initiatives that assist school leavers to move successfully from school into work or further education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes. The Government has committed over $200 million over the next 4 years towards our goal to have all 15 to 19-year-olds involved in education training work or other options by 2007. Other initiatives include the Modern Apprenticeships programme which will cover 8500 young people by the middle of the year; the Gateway programme enabling students from secondary schools of up to decile 6 to begin structured workplace learning; expansion of careers advice including the Designing Careers pilot; Work and Income regionalised programmes; and the post-placement service for youth trainees. 
Craig McNair 
: How can the Minister call it progress when a January 2005 OECD report shows that New Zealanders are now categorised as low-middle income earners along with two former Eastern bloc countries and when reports are showing student debt levels at record highs? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Speaking to the last part of the question I say that the member would have heard the Minister of Education report that students are paying back their debts more quickly according to recent reports; that the overwhelming majority are happy with the system they are working under; and that a great deal has been done to lower their debt. I also say to the member that when we became the Government in 1999 about 87.5 percent of young people were in education training or work. Ninety-three percent are now in that situation and the rest are coming into the youth transitions process I just announced.
Benson-Pope David: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16156] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Border Security Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Cullen Michael: Border Security Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13233] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Border Security Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13039] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10186] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clauses 71 to 74 be agreed to. 
to omit these clauses.
Goudie Sandra: Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11117] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In talking to the third reading I would just like to take up some points raised across the House relating to the property in question. This property owned by the council was deemed to be private property and therefore not subject to treaty claim. That is the general case with private property or with property owned by councils that is deemed to be private property. That is my very clear understanding. 
It is interesting that the Minister is waxing lyrical about the council and its constraints in terms of the particular area she is in yet councils in endeavouring to do their business do so when central government dumps a whole heap of rubbish and compliance costs on top of them. The foreshore and seabed issue will be no less an issue that she will dump on to local authorities or more likely regional authorities. So this will be another issue she will have to confront with her council. 
I would just like to raise those matters that she herself raised in speaking to this part. It will be very interesting in time to come— 
Rod Donald 
: It’s the third reading. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Yes she raised those matters herself. We are all going to be treated the same in this debating chamber are we not? The debate has been wide ranging ever since this bill was introduced to the House. So yes we are still continuing to support it.
Yates Dianne: Voting — Correction; Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Yates Dianne: Voting — Correction; Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:625;Page:20142] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As chair of the Government Administration Committee the committee that looked at this legislation I want to thank the 225 persons who made written submissions. I also want to thank the 5700 people who sent in form submissions and the 40 people who submitted before the committee. 
This legislation is about the integrity of New Zealand passports and New Zealand citizenship and I want to place it on record that the committee did look long and hard at the issues involved especially those people who came on to the committee for that purpose and because of their interests: the Hon Matt Robson Peter Brown Craig McNair at times and Keith Locke. 
I also want to read out a short part of the report on the refusal to issue passports on the grounds of national security. The committee did look at that and the report states: “Most of us however are satisfied that new section 4A as inserted by clause 23”—and other amendments—“will ensure that the Minister cannot deprive New Zealanders of their travel documentation on spurious grounds.” We considered that issue very carefully. We looked at the danger to the security of New Zealand and the decision was not taken lightly.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Assistant Speaker Simich—Ruling Questioned by Member Ahmed Zaoui—Birthday 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Assistant Speaker Simich—Ruling Questioned by Member Ahmed Zaoui—Birthday 
[Volume:622;Page:17421] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I presume this is about this matter. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is about this matter. I am interested to hear that many members write you letters. As it is a matter of interest to the House I invite you to table them all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not be doing that.
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Standing Order 366 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Standing Order 366 
[Volume:627;Page:22163] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Standing Order 366 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order relates to Standing Order 366 “Lodging and publication of written questions and replies”. Throughout the last 3 years we have had problems—and we have raised these matters with you and sought your assistance on them—in getting in a timely manner replies to questions for written answer in particular from the Minister of Police. I am not happy that the replies to questions for written answer Nos 8400 8401 8402 and 8408 all submitted on 20 July and due for reply on 28 July arrived at the New Zealand First office only this morning—ironically or interestingly enough after the time in which we could formally have lodged questions for oral answer so as to follow up on the information that was presented. That Minister has consistently through his entire era of incompetence refused your instructions and refused to comply with the Standing Orders. Once again New Zealand First finds itself disadvantaged by his failure. I ask you on behalf of all Opposition MPs to bring the Minister into line and make him do his job in accordance with the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comment. I will check on the matter and report back. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would be obliged if you could also look at exactly the same issue in relation to questions for written answer Nos 8409 8412 and 8431 in which the Minister was asked about his response and his interest in self-defence in the exercise of citizen powers to help apprehend people and advised that it has not been possible to obtain the information required to enable him to respond to the question by due date. These are questions about his own actions and they did not require anyone else’s information. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I will look into the matter and if I understand that that was the response then under the rules that is the response. It may not be a satisfactory one but it is a response. However I am happy to look into the matter.
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19997] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Public Records Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10185] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 53(1)(a) be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11755] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I want to clarify that Act and I am really appreciative of doing so because obviously I was away and I read the speeches and thought: “Oh gee!” The Toxic Substances Act which is the Act from which these toxic substances are being transferred to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act required anyone importing a new toxic substance to notify the Ministry of Health. The theory was that the Ministry of Health would evaluate the notifications to determine which substances notified were hazardous enough to warrant placing on schedules. If a substance was placed on the schedules it was then and only then subject to regulatory control and specified requirements like all the things that we are talking about now. 
At the time the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act was enacted in 1996 there had been approximately 8000 notifications filed with the Ministry of Health over the previous 16 years since the Toxic Substances Act came into force. Notification as we understand from industry was widely disregarded by industry as no action seemed to result and it could not see the point of it. Over the following 5 years from 1996 when it could see the writing on the wall to the commencement date of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the tally of notifications rose to a staggering—wait for it—215000. That is what came out of the woodwork. The chemical industry which we have been working with on this whole strategy recognised that this was the only way to gain the status of an existing substance under the proposed legislation—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the existing legislation—and therefore remain legally in use following the commencement of that Act. We do not know whether some of the notifications were brought forward because people were saying: “These are the things that we want to use.” or whether they were in use but I think it is quite safe to say that there are substantially more than 8000 toxic substances in use in New Zealand that have never been notified.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:619;Page:14661] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 At the moment I regard the Order Paper as manageable but I am always open to offers for extended hours.
Ogilvy Bernie: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12144] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I will focus on clause 11 in Part 2 because it deals with the final report and accounts. There will be a number of unanswered questions in the minds of a lot of folk and even in this debate today which deserve further scrutiny.I note that neither in the explanatory note to the bill nor in the Education and Science Committee was there any mention of the costs of this merger. It was raised as a question but nobody seems to know how much this will all cost—despite we were told the reasonable assumption of one-off expenditure associated with the integration. Unless this merger achieves some economies in the long term there seems to be little point in it. That is the point we are questioning. 
Much of the operational detail is contained in the organisational plan which as far as I am aware is still secret information. Clause 11 provides that when the bill is passed we will get a full accounting of what happened in the transfer of assets and money. We have been told that the integration is expected to be financially neutral. I have been able to look into that a little and was able to establish that the cost of transitions associated with managing the change and redundancies was expected to be somewhere in the region of $1 million to $2 million. But the Early Childhood Development Board had cash reserves of about $1.4 million to $1.7 million which I imagine will be used in the transition costs of early childhood education delivery. 
However it is expected that overlaying the work of the two agencies will mean that some efficiency in service delivery cost may be achieved down the track. Unfortunately this House and the public of New Zealand will have to wait until clause 11 takes effect—that is when the bill is passed and becomes an Act. So we are still left up in the air as to the efficiencies and whether this will be a neutral fiscal arrangement. That is the point I wish to highlight.
Visitors — Trinidad and Tobago—Speaker of the House of Representatives and Parliamentary Delegation 
Visitors — Trinidad and Tobago—Speaker of the House of Representatives and Parliamentary Delegation 
[Volume:618;Page:13757] 
Tuesday 22 June 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Trinidad and Tobago—Speaker of the House of Representatives and Parliamentary Delegation 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon BarendraSinanin Speaker of the House of Representatives of Trinidad and Tobago accompanied by a parliamentary delegation is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair and that the House would also wish to welcome members of the parliamentary delegation who are present in the gallery. 
The Hon BarendraSinanin accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Brown Peter: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15500] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will take both your advice and the advice of the honourable member. I remind the House that I have not moved a formal motion as yet and when I do in my right of reply I advise members now—so that if they wish to refer to it as part of their contribution to the debate they may do so—that I will be seeking the report back to the House to be on or before 16 December 2004. In the intervening time I will be giving consideration to Mr Peck’s suggestion of referring to the bill to the Commerce Committee. I will move the motion formally as you suggested Mr Assistant Speaker in my right of reply.
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17303] 
8.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Labour 
: What new entitlements are available to parents effective from today under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Act 2004? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Acting Minister of Labour) 
: 
 From today the period of paid parental leave rises from 12 weeks to 13 weeks. This will rise again to 14 weeks from 1 December next year. Also eligibility for the leave has been broadened. An employee now needs to work for the same employer for only 6 months for at least 10 hours a week down from the previous 12 months. 
Helen Duncan 
: How many women so far have accessed paid parental leave? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Over 40000 new parents have accessed paid parental leave since it was established in July 2002. The latest changes mean that a further 3400 new parents will benefit from this initiative. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why are 70000 self-employed women still not able to access paid parental leave and why when self-employed women are entitled to benefits under accident compensation can they not get them under the paid parental leave legislation? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Consideration of the extension of paid parental leave to self-employed people is a high priority and work on that issue is progressing well. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that answer is it true that a highly paid woman employee can get paid parental leave but a modestly paid self-employed woman cannot; is that what the Minister is telling us? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Correct.
Hartley Ann: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5444] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Anderton’s word is properly accepted. That is the end of the matter.
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13513] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 19 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 87 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 21; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Franks Stephen: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Franks Stephen: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8655] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I think I can help. It may have escaped your memory but the young man concerned was a near relative of Kate Alkema who was murdered on the banks of the Hutt River. He was very distraught at the appeal and at the comments made by the judge. He had it in mind to do himself an injury or the court and he decided to come to this place where his action would be more constructively directed towards those who make the law. You might recall that I spoke to you in your office about the matter. I do not believe that the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ point of order is to endeavour to criticise the decision you made then or your involvement then; I believe it is simply to contrast that willingness to be involved with the more recent event. So that may assist you to bear in mind the contrast. Mr Peters may want to correct me if I am wrong but I think that is the incident.
Connell Brian: Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11119] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 It is amazing is it not how a poll result can change the mindset of Parliament. The Government is on 35 or 38 percent or whatever it is with its members filibustering and acting like the Opposition and the National Party on 45 percent is acting like the Government-in-waiting. Accordingly I recommend the passage of this bill through the House. 
Bill read a third time.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:9044] 
6.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What initiatives is the Government taking to promote employment in industry? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Formal employment partnerships with industry are a part of the recently announced Jobs Jolt package. The first of these industry partnerships was signed last night with the hospitality industry. An agreement has been signed between Work and Income and the Hospitality Association for it to take people who are on a benefit train them and employ them in that industry. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Hospitality Association in particular its Chief Executive Bruce Robertson for its commitment to industry partnership and to job growth. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What other employment partnerships are proposed and how many job seekers will be helped into jobs as a result? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Hospitality is the first of a number of industry partnerships for employment. We plan to sign job partnership agreements with a number of high-growth industries in the immediate future. Road transport tourism retail and trades will join the hospitality industry. By working with industry and unions to address training and skill needs we aim to get at least an additional 2500 people into work as part of the overall 22000 jobs that are to come from the Jobs Jolt initiative. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why does the Minister not admit that this agreement is nothing new and that Work and Income has regularly entered into agreements with organisations that are 
designed to put people into work since well before Jobs Jolt; and why does he not explain to the House why the number of long-term unemployed has increased by 50 percent in just 4 years—50 percent on his watch? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It would be news to the Hospitality Association that it did not sign an agreement for the first time last night for these additional 200 jobs as part of this programme. I tell that member that in 2001 this country enjoyed the fourth-highest job growth in the OECD and in 2002 the second-highest job growth at 2.9 percent compared with the OECD average of 0.1 percent. I say to this House that we have the lowest unemployment rate in 16 years. 
Peter Brown 
: What initiatives is the Government taking to expand employment in the shipping industry—noting that several years ago the Government commissioned a review that outlined several initiatives and nothing positive has happened since at all? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The role of the ministry that I am responsible for—Work and Income—is to match people to jobs and we will take initiatives to match people to jobs wherever they appear.
Duncan Helen: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Duncan Helen: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18402] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak briefly to the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill. This is a historic occasion and I am sure everyone in the House is pleased to see that some settlement is being reached in these longstanding claims. Eight Taranaki iwi have been working through their issues and this will be the third settlement to be reached. A great deal of work has been done. I thank all of those who have been involved in that work and congratulate them on the job they have done. I look forward to the continuing work and to the report from the Maori Affairs Committee on this issue.
Points of Order — Civil Aviation Authority—Surveillance 
Points of Order — Civil Aviation Authority—Surveillance 
[Volume:619;Page:14513] 
Points of Order 
Civil Aviation Authority—Surveillance 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to Speaker’s ruling 149/4. The then Associate Minister of Transport Harry Duynhoven in December 2003 and the Civil Aviation Authority director John Jones have vehemently and repeatedly said to Parliament that their agents were not tapping into telephones and taping calls. They denied that. I knew those answers to be false. I said they were false in December last year in a parliamentary question to the Minister and I said they were false in February this year at the select committee. 
Last Thursday the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority Rodger Fisher came to see me. He had prepared a report which is dated 16 June and is from the authority’s legal services group. In it the group accepts that the authority in the year 2002 used taxpayer-supplied scanning equipment to tap private citizens’ phones and to tape conversations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: So far we have not had a point of order. I want to know what the point of order is. There is some interesting material that I am listening to with considerable interest but it is not a point of order. What is the point? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am almost there. This report dated 16 June accepted that as part of a covert surveillance private phone calls were scanned listened into and recorded. Of course that is an offence. New Zealanders would be horrified to know that civil servants are listening into their phone calls. But what is horrifying—and Mr Speaker this is where I am asking you to provide some guidance to this House—is that the Minister and his chief executive have consistently denied it and indeed have provided answers to this House and to the select committee that are clearly wrong. They have known that because they have had a report prepared by their own chairman since 16 June. I would have thought they would come down to this House to provide a correction. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister considers he has given wrong information he must correct it but it is up to the Minister not me to judge that.
Field Taito Phillip: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9023] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I want a ruling on my point of order.
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations 
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations 
[Volume:619;Page:14594] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps it would help the House to make a determination about whether leave should be granted in this circumstance if Mr Duynhoven were to indicate whether he was going to correct an answer or rebut an allegation. If he is rebutting an allegation then it is surely a matter for a ministerial statement.
Tisch Lindsay: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9026] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 That is exactly the point that I made earlier. We have voted already on the Hon Tony Ryall’s clause 2 and clause 3 amendments which according to Standing Order 301 should actually have come after the Minister’s amendments. That is why I sought leave for the Minister’s amendments to clauses 2 and 3 on Supplementary Order Paper 151 to be voted on separately ahead of the Hon Tony Ryall’s amendments then we would vote on those. That is what I sought leave for—and the member denied leave.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Light Armoured Vehicles—Report 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Light Armoured Vehicles—Report 
[Volume:623;Page:18469] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received an application under Standing Order 373 from John Carter seeking to debate the report tabled yesterday on the acquisition and introduction into service of light armoured vehicles. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but this matter has been the subject of a number of reports and consideration over a period of time and consequently I do not consider the tabling of the report yesterday requires the immediate attention of the House. The application is accordingly declined.
Beyer Georgina: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6870] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: In the faint hope that someone will speak to the title I will give the call to the honourable member John Key.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7136] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That last remark is out of order. In fact most of the point of order is out of order. It is up to the Government to decide who answers the question. Please ask question No. 3.
Burton Mark: Business Law Reform Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Burton Mark: Business Law Reform Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:12410] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to a unanimous decision of the Business Committee today I seek leave for the bills divided out of the Business Law Reform Bill to be read a third time immediately following the Committee stage. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers  
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers  
[Volume:615;Page:11007] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. So that we are quite clear about the distinctions here are you saying that it would be appropriate now for us to go down to the Clerk’s Office with a question that asks for example the Minister of Defence whether he has seen or heard any suggestions that the Skyhawks are about to be sold to al-Qaeda and if so how they are to be paid for and that that would be a reasonable question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Not the second part but I cannot see what is wrong with the first part. The Minister can simply get up and say no or yes. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: So now we will be able to ask questions in the House on the basis of rumour. There is no need to be able to substantiate a question any longer if members use the English language to put it in such a way that they simply ask the Minister about something that may or may not be suggested.
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19829] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4Amendments to Health Act 1956