edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Stewart Barbara: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8687] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. The bill is definitely not contentious; it is long overdue and it is about time the law actually reflected the status quo. 
We know that many women want to and already do participate in the armed forces in all sorts of roles whether they be pilots soldiers sailors or whatever. They are already there. Many of them are already in active combat roles and of course they should be able to continue in those roles if they so desire. 
We need to ensure that opportunity exists for women to participate fully in the armed forces. We already know that the rigours of war are both physically and mentally challenging. Women have already shown that they can participate fully in that respect. We must have the highest praise for those women—and men—who participate in the peacekeeping forces overseas and within the armed forces. We know that women have made a significant contribution in active combat roles and they will continue to do so. That is what we want to see. 
The number of women is increasing in all parts of the armed forces and we wish them well in the roles they carry out so successfully. New Zealand First supports this bill.
Dalziel Lianne: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8686] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs) 
: 
 I want to respond to a couple of the points that have been made. The first point I want to make quite clearly is that no one on this side of the Committee has said that the deployment of women in active combat roles is symbolic. The issue around symbolism is removing the exemption in the Human Rights Act which is no longer required because we do not have any exemption requirements in the Defence Force because of the move it made in the year 2000. 
The comment has been made that that change to the defence regulations was made by Defence Force order in 2000. I should say that it did not have immediate impact either which is part of the reason why this is not a 7-year delay in terms of responding to requirements. In fact when that Defence Force order was first made it was felt that it would take up until 2005 before finally all the positions that were available to men where there had been a barrier to women taking up those different trades and roles within the Army would be able to be fully integrated. That was part of the reason why no hurry was given to removing that particular part of the Human Rights Act. 
Another point was made about the bill starting off as a member’s bill. I think it is actually a positive that an individual member has brought a particular measure to the House. I do not think that it in any way belittles the measure or says it is any less important because a member of the House rather than the Government has brought it to the attention of the House. In fact I know perfectly well with the example a member used—that a National Government led the way with the Human Rights Act in 1993—a significant feature of the debate on that legislation because I was in Parliament at the time and in fact was a member of the select committee that looked at that particular bill was that the two controversial aspects of that bill which were the removal of discrimination based on sexual orientation and infections in the body capable of causing disease which is the HIV anti-discrimination provisions were both introduced by Supplementary Order Paper under the name of Katherine O’Regan as a private member not as a member of the Government. So sometimes these things require a private member to bring them to the attention of Parliament and I do not think they are in any way diminished as a result of that particular process being used. 
Apart from those comments I am very pleased with the way the debate has gone. I think that people have participated in a very positive and constructive way. I know that all New Zealand women will feel particularly proud that this year we will be able to report to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women that we have removed the last remaining reservation as a result of the passage of this bill.
Roy Eric: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8685] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I felt motivated to take a brief call by firstly one or two of the comments made during the bill’s second reading and secondly by some of the comments made by members from the Government side in the first part of the Committee stage. However there was a touch of realism in the comments made by the previous two speakers the Hon Phil Goff and my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp. 
As the Hon Phil Goff pointed out this bill codifies in statute what has been the practice for some time and it is appropriate that we do that. National concurs with his comments that women play an important part in the armed services and should be there based on their ability to perform the role not on their gender. National supports that. 
I will make two further points. In listening to the speeches in the second reading and in the earlier part of the Committee stage I felt that the comments about symbolism were not in the real world. It may be symbolic for some people that we embrace women into these particular roles that they are doing but the reality is that there is an element of danger in the armed services. Right now we have not had to report any fatalities in this House; indeed we have very seldom had to report significant injuries. But in reality the armed forces from time to time are called to be not peacekeepers but peacemakers and in those instances they are in the theatre of war where there is significant danger. 
Those people who spoke—and I see Darien Fenton who made a contribution is here—need to be aware that the people in our armed forces in general are at significant risk and that should not be understated. Although we may be doing a symbolic thing here we need to be conscious of the fact that from time to time there are significant dangers. Those members who have seen films that we do not really identify with like  
Saving Private Ryan 
 will know that that sort of thing can be the reality of war and at some time in the future it may well be. That is when the people in our armed forces will be at risk including women who are in the services. 
I find it a little bit ironic that this bill talks about the front line. Certainly we can identify a front line in the Army and at times that is hand-to-hand stuff or it can be a range of things. In the Navy the front line is a little more distant and in the Air Force it does not now exist because our strike force is gone and it is hard to imagine where the front line is in the Air Force. That raises another issue about who might provide air cover for our women when they are on the ground in the armed forces. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Come up to date Eric. Your party has changed that policy. You’re against an air-combat wing now. 
ERIC ROY 
: Righto but here is a significant issue. I make the point that if we are committing any armed forces at all be they men or women we need to commit to supporting them in every appropriate way for the important work they do.
Blue Jackie: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8680] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am proud to stand here and support Part 1 of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. It is not a contentious bill. I understand that there were six submissions to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and one oral submission. 
I will take just a short call on this bill. I have read through the speeches on Part 1 and Part 2 and everyone has said it all before. This bill is overdue. It sets right an anomaly in the Human Rights Act that discriminates against women serving in active combat. In actual fact that has not been the policy at all in the armed forces for the last 7 years so this bill is catching up with the practice of today. But it is better late than never. 
I also take the time to talk about Nancy Wake. I know that my colleague Judith Collins has made a plea as have other members of this Parliament for this woman to be recognised. She is a very brave New Zealand woman aged 94 who is living in the United Kingdom but she is a New Zealander as she was born in New Zealand. It is women like Nancy whom we need to look up to and give accolades to. This bill hopefully will set the last hurdle so that women can participate fully in the armed forces whether it be in the Army the Navy or the Air Force. 
The bill rights an anomaly. It now allows us to follow modern practice and to be consistent with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The shame of the whole matter is that we should have had this bill long ago. It has taken 7 long years. I must congratulate Lynne Pillay the Labour member on taking on a member’s bill that has now been adopted by the Government. 
I will stop at this point. There are other points that will be made by my colleagues but certainly I would like to say that we support the bill and we will certainly talk to the other parts of the bill tonight.
Vote: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8675] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8674] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 104 in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe to Part 2 be agreed to.
Moroney Sue: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Moroney Sue: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8668] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call so that I can clarify the situation that was put before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Of course we did canvass very fully the issue of cost recovery and how that would occur in terms of setting up these processes. As the member opposite David Bennett who was involved in that select committee well knows that was an issue of quite some considerable discussion and debate in the select committee. 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. That speaker is implying that I support her contention that a levy was introduced in the select committee. That is completely not the case. The member cannot do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a point of debate and I am sure the member knows that very well. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The point I was making was that the issue of cost recovery in order to set up these processes was well canvassed. The member David Bennett was involved in that discussion; he was on the select committee. There was significant discussion about the issue of the requirement for cost recovery as happens when any professional body or group is being set up. It is interesting to learn that the Opposition now finds this a surprise when the issue was well canvassed at the select committee. So I wanted to take a very quick call to clarify that issue. It should be absolutely clear to anyone— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Members cannot give a running commentary the whole time. I have warned Mr Bennett and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith about this several times tonight. If they want to take a call they can take a call afterwards. Please do not make a running commentary so that no one can hear anything. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I would appreciate it if the members opposite could take a call to clarify their position on this. Sometimes it seems we get to the Committee stage and we find that things we believed had been fully canvassed are being argued against by members opposite. So I just wanted to take a very quick call to clarify that situation. Thank you.
Vote: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8663] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Amendments agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8662] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. There is a slight difficulty in that the Supplementary Order Paper also covers Part 2. Presumably you mean the amendments that relate to Part 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes the amendments that relate to Part 1.
Vote: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8662] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendments in the name of Dr Pita Sharples as has already been advised have been ruled out of order by financial veto. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 104 in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe be agreed to.
Dyson Ruth: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8660] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt my colleague during his presentation but during an interchange Bob Clarkson used an unparliamentary term. I ask that he withdraw and apologise. 
Bob Clarkson 
: I didn’t. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It was the one where you covered your mouth after you used it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There will be silence. You did use the word. 
Bob Clarkson 
: I said: “Don’t lie.” but I didn’t say he was lying. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: But you were— 
Bob Clarkson 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you.
Cosgrove Clayton: Tabling of Documents — Letter from the  
Cosgrove Clayton: Tabling of Documents — Letter from the  
[Volume:638;Page:8652] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter I received today from the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations thanking all parliamentary parties and members for their support of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex 
Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:638;Page:8605] 
Wednesday 4 April 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am raising a point of order on a matter that Peter Dunne and I raised with you last week and that is the police barring of an accredited press gallery journalist Nick Wang from a parliamentary function last week. I understand that you met Police Commissioner Broad this morning and I wonder whether he had a useful response that could be communicated to the House particularly in the light of the fact that Mr Broad is in the mood this week to give apologies for police wrongdoing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I was going to report to the House tomorrow when I had had time to prepare a statement but I shall do it now. Yes I met with the commissioner today. The commissioner and I have agreed that we will discuss and prepare a protocol on security matters as they relate to the complex. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In approaching that matter I trust you will not treat a misunderstanding over the treatment of one journalist as equivalent in nature to the abuse of women in sexual matters by police officers in the past. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with that. I must also emphasise that I had a very good meeting with the commissioner who does respect the privileges and the position of Parliament. I have no doubt at all that we will reach agreement on a protocol. I will of course be discussing this matter also with the press gallery and hopefully my office has already contacted it for a meeting.
Tabling of Documents — Letter from the  
Tabling of Documents — Letter from the  
[Volume:638;Page:8652] 
Tabling of Documents 
Letter from the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter I received today from the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations thanking all parliamentary parties and members for their support of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hide Rodney: General Debate 
Hide Rodney: General Debate 
[Volume:638;Page:8629] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to indicate to the Hon Parekura Horomia that we on this side of the House so enjoyed his speech that I am sure that if he wanted to speak for another 5 minutes and sought leave to do so— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order Mr Hide.
Maharey Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Maharey Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8621] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise.
Coleman Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Coleman Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8621] 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thought that when members withdrew and apologise there was no prefacing—that members just get up and withdraw and apologise. The Minister knows that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes.
Maharey Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Maharey Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8621] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 If I have caused offence I withdraw and apologise obviously.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8621] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 The remark was somewhat surprising. It would have been inappropriate to make an accusation without checking. Staff who are watching this question time have reported that the words were audible. I think it would be rather odd if the Minister were not prepared to withdraw and apologise.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8621] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is long past the time for that point of order to be raised. It should have been raised at the immediate time.
Coleman Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Coleman Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8620] 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. At the end of the answer by the Minister of Broadcasting to my supplementary question on question No. 9 the Minister of Broadcasting made a highly insulting and unparliamentary remark across the Chamber. I invite him either to repeat it now or to withdraw and apologise.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8618] 
10.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What progress is he making to reduce the occurrence of identity fraud in New Zealand? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 A good deal. I have introduced a number of measures to reduce the ease with which fraudsters can falsify identity. Those measures include e-passports which by the use of a microchip that contains matching bio-data in the front of the passports make it near to impossible to falsify travel documentation. As well as that I have recently introduced the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill to the House which if enacted will mean that the introduction of new access provisions will reflect more realistically the privacy and security needs of the 21st century and by doing so will make it more difficult for fraudsters to commit crimes of identity. 
Darien Fenton 
: Do the measures in the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill make the job of competent historians who are writing about 20th century New Zealand difficult if not impossible? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: No not at all. The bill ensures that people will still have access to records provided they have a legitimate purpose and permission to access those records and to use that information. The primary concern in introducing the bill is about the protection of personal and private information. A recent survey showed that 52 percent of New Zealanders were concerned about identity theft. As an example of the type of problem that the bill will address I inform members that 4.3 percent of all adult Americans—over 9 million people—are the victims of identity fraud each year. We know the cost of identity fraud in the UK was £1.9 billion last year and in Australia identity fraud cost $1.1 billion. In New Zealand the cost of identity fraud is estimated at around $400 million a year and to our economy this is a very fast-growing type of crime. I am sure that New Zealanders expect the Government to guard information it has on them and to do everything it can to prevent identity theft. This bill is an important safeguard in addressing those concerns.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8613] 
6.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What is being done to ensure that regional New Zealand benefits from economic transformation? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Government announced today the establishment of two new regional funds to support the growth of more internationally competitive firms. First there is the Enterprising Partnerships Fund. This will focus on substantial regional projects that are commercially driven and generate substantial economic benefits for the region in line with national economic transformation goals. Funding under this programme will be approximately $9 million in 2007-08 $10.5 million in each of the following 2 years and $11.5 million after that. Secondly there is a new Regional Strategy Fund. That will give 14 regions access to a maximum of three-quarters of a million dollars each over 3 years to develop and implement regional economic development strategies. 
Darren Hughes 
: Is he aware of any alternative reports on regional economic development in New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes at least two. One supported Government initiatives that provide assistance to regional development. The other considered that the Government was overspending. The first was from John Key. The second was from Bill English.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8611] 
4.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing to assist schools with the costs of software for information and communications technology? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I announced today that the Government will be spending $33 million over the next 4 years on contracts with Microsoft Apple IBM and Novell to ensure the continued delivery to New Zealand schools of crucial software for administration and learning. This is part of the overall investment of $377 million that we have spent on information and communications technology since 2001. That investment supports our school administrators our teachers our principals and our students so as to transform the learning environment into the modern one that we all want to see. 
Moana Mackey 
: What else is the Government doing to ensure that New Zealand teachers and students can make use of information and communications technology to aid learning? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The $33 million announced today builds on the substantial investment over the past 4 years that I mentioned. That has helped clusters of schools to develop new ways of teaching with information and communications technology. It has supplied laptops to teachers and principals provided videoconferencing facilities provided fellowships to fund teachers’ research into e-learning and provided information and practical assistance to schools about the Internet and cellphone safety issues. I suggest that Mr Key visit Tahatai Coast School which is just one leading example of what our schools are doing in this area. By visiting the school he could perhaps prepare for his next aspirational attack on our education system.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8607] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. While I understand of course that the Government has the right to transfer questions of this nature this particular transfer from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Finance gives me a particular difficulty in pursuing the question. I was particularly interested in the Prime Minister’s views on whether rail electrification in Auckland would serve her stated objectives. I am rather less interested with all due respect to the Minister of Finance in his view of whether it will serve the Prime Minister’s objectives given that I have not heard him articulate those objectives and given his statement about Auckland— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think I understand the point of order and as the member said herself it is for the Government to decide who addresses the question. Would you please ask the question.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:638;Page:8605] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with that. I must also emphasise that I had a very good meeting with the commissioner who does respect the privileges and the position of Parliament. I have no doubt at all that we will reach agreement on a protocol. I will of course be discussing this matter also with the press gallery and hopefully my office has already contacted it for a meeting.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:638;Page:8605] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In approaching that matter I trust you will not treat a misunderstanding over the treatment of one journalist as equivalent in nature to the abuse of women in sexual matters by police officers in the past.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:638;Page:8605] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I was going to report to the House tomorrow when I had had time to prepare a statement but I shall do it now. Yes I met with the commissioner today. The commissioner and I have agreed that we will discuss and prepare a protocol on security matters as they relate to the complex.
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex 
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:638;Page:8605] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am raising a point of order on a matter that Peter Dunne and I raised with you last week and that is the police barring of an accredited press gallery journalist Nick Wang from a parliamentary function last week. I understand that you met Police Commissioner Broad this morning and I wonder whether he had a useful response that could be communicated to the House particularly in the light of the fact that Mr Broad is in the mood this week to give apologies for police wrongdoing.
Ryall Tony: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and  State Enterprises — In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and  State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8817] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 One evening last month a 25-year-old man presented with his family members at the emergency department of Christchurch Hospital. He was in considerable agony and pain as a result of an injury he had sustained. He was turned away by the district health board employees at the emergency department in Christchurch Hospital only to die 12 hours later. Another young man presented at Christchurch Hospital’s emergency department last week in considerable groin pain. He was in agony—a 23-year-old man crying— 
Jo Goodhew 
: Screaming in pain. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: He was screaming. He waited for hours to be seen and was turned away only to be admitted by ambulance to that very same emergency department 2 days later. That is the reason why more and more stories are surfacing in the media about what is happening at Christchurch Hospital and about its inability to provide the sort of quality standard of care that we would expect in our hospitals for our people in New Zealand.  
The Government crows about the $4 billion a year extra it has put into the health budget but what about the quality of the service that that money is producing? The Minister Pete Hodgson stood up in the Chamber today and said that the service is improving all the time. He should tell that to the partner of the 25-year-old man who is now dead. He should tell that to the family of the 82-year-old man who was given the wrong medication at Auckland Hospital because of an administrative blunder. The Minister should tell that man’s family members that the health system is improving all the time.  
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Robertson H V Ross: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and  State Enterprises — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and  State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8804] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that the next entities members wish to debate are the Crown research institutes. Is there any objection to taking these as one question? There is not.
Foss Craig: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and  State Enterprises — In Committee 
Foss Craig: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and  State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8797] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand as reported— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Does the member wish to speak on the Government Superannuation Fund Authority? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: No. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well then you are in the wrong debate. 
Report noted.
Mallard Trevor: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and  State Enterprises — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and  State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8796] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 I thank Mr Woolerton for his contribution to the debate. I think it is fair to say that his contribution stepped slightly wide of the Government Superannuation Fund Authority and did give the Government a lot of praise and support for the work it has done and the work it is about to do—I feel like I am saying grace. But it is good to bring the focus back to the subject of the debate which is the Government Superannuation Fund Authority and to say that overall it has made very good progress in the current financial year. The total after-tax surplus of the fund was $462 million for the last year ended 30 June. The total net assets increased by $271.7 million. The total assets of the fund were $3.8 billion.  
Unfortunately for the long-term future of the country the total liabilities of the fund are about $15 billion and clearly that is something that is being worked on. The level of the required Government contribution projected over 5 years from 30 June before the offset from employers is $577 million this year rising to $618 million by 2010-11. So there is quite a large liability sitting there in that fund.  
As far as the investment returns are concerned the performance of the fund has been very strong over the past 3 years. In the last year the fund achieved a 13.5 percent return on average net assets. The best-performing asset classes were property and international equities. I know that it is strictly outside the realm of the debate but I think the Chair will be liberal and let me say that in the first two quarters of this financial year the fund has achieved a return of 6.3 percent.  
In the last financial year the authority decided to allocate up to 15 percent of the fund’s assets to alternative asset classes in addition to the 7.5 percent allocation to property. The first step in implementing that was to shift 3 percent of the fund’s assets from New Zealand bonds taking them down from 8 percent to 5 percent to commodities futures. I am sure my colleague Maryan Street will be pleased to know that the authority has committed itself to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment.
Hartley Ann: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and  State Enterprises — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and  State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8795] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The House is in Committee for the debate on the performance in 2005-06 and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises. The debate on the performance of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises is a series of debates on individual financial reviews of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported by select committees. The debates on the individual financial reviews should be relevant to their performance in the 2005-06 financial year and their current operations. A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. A total of 3 hours is allowed for the debate. At the conclusion of the 3 hours the Chairperson will report to the House. Only the financial reviews that have been reported are available for debate. A list of these is appended to the Order Paper.  
I understand that members have indicated the Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises that they wish to debate. The first entity I understand that members wish to debate is the Government Superannuation Fund Authority.
Hughes Darren: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Hughes Darren: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:638;Page:8773] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Madam Assistant Speaker I know that you have already put the motion which puts us in a bit of a difficult technical position so I seek leave for Hone Harawira to be able to make a contribution to the debate on this motion and for the vote to be put immediately after he has concluded his contribution. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that action. Is there any objection? There is not.
Hodgson Pete: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Hodgson Pete: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:638;Page:8772] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) on behalf of Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General commending to His Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2006/07 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the appropriations and information for the 2007/08 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and Offices of Parliament. 
The need for this motion arises from the special arrangements that Parliament has for dealing with the budgets of Officers of Parliament under the Public Finance Act 1989. The officers concerned are the Auditor-General the Ombudsmen and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. In terms of the Act the Speaker is the responsible Minister for those officers who have a special relationship with this House and carry out independent watching roles concerning the executive’s activities. Section 26E of the Public Finance Act 1989 provides that before an appropriation in a vote administered by an Office of Parliament may be included in an appropriation bill for a financial year information must be submitted to the House on estimates of expenses capital expenditure and other matters.  
The Officers of Parliament Committee on behalf of the House has considered and made recommendations concerning proposed alterations to the 2006-07 appropriations and also the 2007-08 draft budgets for the Officers of Parliament. The committee’s report was presented to the House on 2 April 2007.  
The House is now being asked to commend to the Governor-General by way of an Address the estimates concerned for each Officer of Parliament with the request that those estimates be included as a vote in an appropriation bill. This procedure for the presentation of an Address to the Governor-General reflects the relationship of Officers of Parliament as statutory persons separate from the executive to the legislature. The Address anticipates the forthcoming Budget.
Blue Jackie: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8770] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I take great pleasure in speaking to the title of this bill—that is the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. I also acknowledge all the women and men who have served in our armed forces and it seems very apt—having just had Anzac Day—that we are debating this bill tonight. Indeed I acknowledge the Hon Harry Lapwood who died; I attended his funeral yesterday and he was acknowledged in the House today. He was a top bloke. He was an Army returned serviceman and will never be forgotten.  
The title is very apt; the bill amends the Human Rights Act which is outdated in this respect and fixes up an anomaly so the legislation can come up to speed with modern practice. It also allows for consistency with international conventions such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. At the time of the enactment of the Human Rights Act in 1993 it was the policy that women did not take part in active combat or duty. For the last 7 years I understand it has no longer been policy in the armed forces to discriminate against women. So we have to ask the question why it has taken 7 years to have this legislation before the House to correct the anomaly. Never mind; it is better late than never as they say.  
I also acknowledge Nancy Wake as a New Zealander who served in the armed forces. She left New Zealand when she was 12 and is now 94 and has been acknowledged by virtually every other country apart from New Zealand. The RSA has commended her with its highest honour—but not New Zealand. She is 94; time is ticking. It is not too late and I hope the Government will honour her in the Queen’s Birthday honours in June.  
I also acknowledge another wonderful New Zealander Colonel Louisa Parkinson who is the highest-ranked women serving in the Territorial Force. I know Louisa personally. She is an amazing woman—inspirational and a huge role model. With people like Louisa at the helm I am sure the numbers of women in the armed forces can only increase with time. This bill will set the stage for this to occur although a lot of work has to be done.  
I was also in the Territorial Force during my time as a medical student—in the university medical unit. We trained the same as men we took on the same duties we had the same challenges and we competed at every level. Certainly my time in the Army though it was short made me acknowledge and respect people who work in the armed forces who serve our country. They are courageous and brave and we have to honour them.  
I would like to conclude that we support this bill. We are pleased to see it before Parliament. We are just concerned that it has taken so long to get here and we certainly hope the Government acknowledges Nancy Wake.
Chauvel Charles: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8761] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call in support of Part 2 of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill 2006. I was pleased to speak at an earlier stage of the debate in support of the legislation when it had the form of a member’s bill and now that it is a Government bill I am equally delighted to rise to speak in support.  
I note that the purpose of Part 2 is to amend the Employment Relations Act. It is a new part added unanimously by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. The consequential amendments to the Employment Relations Act 2000 provide that section 104 of that Act dealing with discrimination in employment is to be read subject to certain provisions of the Human Rights Act 1993 in relation to employment matters. One of the provisions of that Act is section 33 which allows discrimination in the armed forces. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has recommended that this exception be removed from the Employment Relations Act 2000 and that is what the operative part will achieve.  
The laws of this country relating to service in the armed forces have always sought to make a distinction between the strict nature of employment as understood in the private sector and service under the Crown as occurs by sworn members for example in the armed forces. The employment relations legislation adopts a broad definition of employment so using the expression “employment” in amending employment legislation does not do violence to the traditional distinction that has been maintained in armed forces and in the general law. The use of the expression “employment” to refer to service under the Crown in the armed forces as well as civilian employment therein is as I say a broad usage of the term and refers on a blanket basis to the service of all those in the armed forces and in the civilian parts of the service that support it.  
Part 2 is clearly a key part of the legislation given that it is effectively the operative part of the legislation and it accomplishes an important amendment to the Employment Relations Act 2000. It is a pleasure to rise in support of it as it is the most important operative part of the bill which as has been said on previous occasions achieves a very important milestone in the laws of New Zealand. It puts in place and enacts the practice that has occurred now for some years— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I don’t believe there’s anything exciting about it at all! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: —I tell Mr Woolerton that I am very excited about it—which is to permit women to serve in the front line which has been operational practice for some time. It is appropriate from a human rights and an operational perspective and as I say it accomplishes the purpose of the bill which is very good legislation and which I am delighted to support. Thank you Mr Chairperson.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8749] 
12.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Has he received any reports on proposed changes to Working for Families tax credits? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have seen a surprising report in today’s Christchurch  
Press 
 which proposes that the Working for Families tax credits which currently go to middle and low income families should be redistributed to the wealthy. Under the proposed roll-back an estimated 160000 families would lose about $50 per week and an estimated 60000 families would lose tax credits. For a Kiwi family with three kids and a mortgage and earning around $52000 a year and currently receiving $246 per week under the Working for Families package the proposals would see that family lose some $80 per week. That proposal of course comes from the leader of the National Party John Key whose main interest appears to be putting as much money as he can into the pockets of his wealthy mates.  
Russell Fairbrother 
: What would be the effect of taking tax credits away from middle and low income families? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can advise the member that Working for Families tax credits have among other things lifted an estimated 70000 children over the income poverty threshold. New Zealand is expected to move from 18th place on the Unicef Innocenti report card into the top half and possibly into the top quartile in terms of the reduction in child poverty. The effect of Mr Key’s proposals announced today would be to reverse that trend. I seek the leave of the House to table a document entitled  
It Works Just Fine 
 which refers to the effect of the Working for Families package. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8748] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This question was originally set down to the Prime Minister. Although National members appreciate that the Government can transfer questions the reality in this case is that it deals very directly with a statement made by the Prime Minister. It is very difficult for any other Minister to say whether the Prime Minister stands by her statements. We realise there is a degree of sensitivity from the Government around the issue of copyright in artworks but notwithstanding that we seek leave for this question to be held over until such time as the Prime Minister may be able to answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.