edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15441] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there will need to be a ruling made here that does not see any gap in procedural matters in our Standing Orders in fact unduly impede the progress of the bill. The Committee has clearly made a determination by way of a majority on how it should proceed. If this motion is debated now and it is a long debate at that point a decision will be made by the Committee that it has already made. The absurdity here is that the Standing Orders and the procedures of the House make it clear that new parts that bring in matters that have previously been dealt with cannot stand but we can then have a debate about whether the House can instruct itself to either accept or not accept those parts. That seems to me to be a complete mockery of the way in which the procedure of the House should progress.
Brownlee Gerry: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15481] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that was an interesting contribution and attempted justification from Trevor Mallard who has just resumed his seat for disrupting the business of the Committee. Firstly let me make it very clear that I did not know of the previous associations of Ms Fenton or for that matter the Hon Rick Barker but I do think the Hon Rick Barker has made exactly the right call in this case. I can recall debates earlier this year when we were passing taxation legislation and repeatedly Labour members referred to members on this side of the Chamber as people who were advantaging their Tory mates. That was never pulled up by the Speaker; it was made clear that it was a comment in general in the debate. 
I think we need to have a robust Parliament. The shrinking violet approach that Mr Mallard wants to take at the moment is not consistent with his general offerings in the Chamber. He will be aware that during the debate on the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill and on the changes it made to employer and contractor status just a couple of weeks ago there were regular references suggesting that members on this side of the Chamber had somehow caved in—I think at one stage the term “bent over” was used—and had acquiesced in a number of fashions to a large corporate. That seemed simply to bring a degree of mirth to the faces on the other side of the Chamber and Ms Fenton was one of those who enjoyed that particular style of humour. 
If we are to become so sensitive to general comments such as those the Hon Tau Henare made we will be saying very little in this Chamber at all. It was not the theme of Mr Henare’s speech and I repeat that I think the Hon Rick Barker has made the correct decision in ruling that there was no personal attack in the statement. In fact there was simply a turn of phrase that was part of the general debate.
Roy Eric: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Roy Eric: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:668;Page:15420] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have to make a ruling. I apologise to the member in whose name the amendment to add a new Part 3 is but I have now had time to fully consider the import of the amendment and also to take some advice. An amendment such as the amendment the member has tabled should be associated with Part 1. Therefore it is out of order as is his amendment to add a new Part 4.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15501] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next 12 amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 13 are ruled out of order as contrary to a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 68(1A)(b) “reasonable” and substitute “full”.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:668;Page:15407] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 20A(1) “unless the access is required for matters relating to harassment or discrimination of any employee”.
Vote: Alcohol Reform Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Alcohol Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15276] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Alcohol Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 (Boscawen Hide); Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 3 
ACT New Zealand 3 (Calvert Douglas Roy H). 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Roy Heather: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Roy Heather: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15286] 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 Contrary to what the previous speaker Keith Locke has just said the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) is a very good bill and the ACT Party will be supporting it. The bill extends the 90-day trial period currently permitted for employers with 20 or fewer employees to employers of any size which is exactly as it should be. There should be a level playing field in the market place. 
The bill also makes changes to union access to workplaces communications with employees during collective bargaining and the test for justifiable dismissal or an action by an employer. It actually rectifies several problems that have emerged since the 90-day trial period was introduced. In fact ACT would have been very happy to have a significantly longer trial period. We would have been very happy to have it set at 6 months— 
Carol Beaumont 
: Why not permanently? 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: —or permanently. I like the way Carol Beaumont is thinking. That would be a very good solution to the problem. 
Employers have noted that the situation is much better. They have the ability to trial employees and employees also have the ability—it is not one-sided—to try out a job that they might not be very certain in their minds about taking on in the first instance. ACT supports this bill. We will support the 90-day period and as I said we would be happy for it to be a bit longer. But 90 days is certainly better than nothing at all. Thank you.
Pillay Lynne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15287] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am appalled by the contribution of the member who has just resumed his seat Tau Henare on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I do not think it was even a contribution. It was shocking stuff. That member is absolutely languishing in the past. 
Hone Harawira 
: Languishing languishing. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly and I know that that Maori Party member will be taking his call soon—probably not tonight but at the very next time that this bill is debated. Tau Henare’s speech was absolutely shocking stuff. 
How many submitters were at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee? 
Sue Moroney 
: 8000. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Eight thousand submitters said that this bill is ridiculous. I want to go back to what Carol Beaumont said earlier and I will use young people as an example. What will it do for young people’s self-esteem when they are sacked from their first job and they have to go home and say they have been sacked? What will it do to those young people? It will absolutely knock their confidence. Nicky Wagner is scowling over there. What is wrong with someone being told the reason? It is absolutely appalling. 
We heard the previous speaker talking about choice. Labour believes in choice. Where is the choice with the 90-day “sack-at-will” legislation? Workers have to take it or leave it. That is the workers’ choice. Workers do not have the choice of saying they do not want to be sacked for no reason. They cannot say they want the protection of being told that they are not performing so they that can fix it. 
Allan Peachey 
: Could you sit down so I can speak before 6 o’clock? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I do not think so. Where is the choice in the legislation? The choice for a new person in a job is to take it or leave it and that is utterly appalling. 
I think that members Mr Assistant Speaker Roy and everyone in this House will reflect on my final words this evening. As they leave this House they will think: “Where is the choice in this bill?” Would that be right? When this bill is next debated I will finish my speech. I think this bill is an absolutely shocking indictment in relation to the dignity of workers in this country. 
Debate interrupted.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research—Water-quality Report 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research—Water-quality Report 
[Volume:668;Page:15251] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Charles Chauvel seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd report on  
Lake water quality in New Zealand 2010: Status and trends 
. 
This is a particular case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility. Although on occasion the release of a report may warrant an urgent debate the circumstances must be exceptional. This issue is an important one but the time to consider it is when the steps that need to be taken to improve freshwater quality emerge from the consultation process that the Government currently has under way. In these circumstances I do not believe that setting aside the House’s business for an urgent debate today can be justified. The application is therefore declined.
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15250] 
12. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture 
: What has been the result of recent enforcement activities undertaken by the Ministry of Fisheries? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 Over the last year there has been an increase in effective policing in the Ministry of Fisheries just as we have seen effective policing with the Ministry of Justice. Nearly 400 criminal prosecutions have been undertaken between August of last year and this year—280 offences related to recreational fishing 74 offences were poaching and black market offences 38 offences were inshore commercial offences and three offences were deep-water commercial offences. Our fisheries are one of our nation’s most valuable assets and it is very important that the Ministry of Fisheries team has been able to nail these offenders. 
John Hayes 
: What has been the result of legal action taken against commercial fishers in the last year? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Commercial operators are regularly inspected and as result of targeted action 41 commercial operators are facing prosecution. This year the ministry undertook one of its most significant prosecutions—misreporting by companies and crew associated with the vessel  
Tomi Maru 87 
. In July all of those charged pleaded guilty and acknowledged misreporting. Sentencing is yet to be carried out but $636000 in sale proceeds has been forfeited to the Crown and $1.1 million has been paid to the Crown by the owner of the  
Tomi Maru 87 
 in order to redeem it from seizure. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Can the Minister explain to the House how the enforcement obligations of the Crown to tangata whenua and sections 7A and 7B in clause 53 of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) will enable tangata whenua to progress in aquaculture? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: When that bill hits the select committee we hope to hear back from tangata whenua as to how they see it operating and whether it will satisfy their needs. I look forward to their submissions. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have directed the Minister’s attention to clause 53; he is obviously not aware of what— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot do that.
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15248] 
10. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What action has the Government taken to help the roll-out of wireless broadband in regional New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 Further applications were invited on 9 November for access to the Managed Spectrum Park in the 2.5 gigahertz band on a “first come first served” basis. This follows a previous application process in 2009. This spectrum allocation will improve broadband services to rural New Zealand which is a priority for the Government. An emerging consensus on the importance of wireless broadband services in rural areas means we will play a vital part in rolling out broadband in those areas where fixed broadband infrastructure can be less economic to deploy and insufficiently flexible—for example in the farming environment. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What progress is the Government making on the Rural Broadband Initiative? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Tenders close tomorrow for companies to submit their bids for the Rural Broadband Initiative. I am confident we will achieve our target of 80 percent of rural households and businesses having access to broadband services of 5 megabits per second or better and the remaining 20 percent on speeds of 1 megabit per second or better within the 6-year period. I expect the first agreement on providing fast rural broadband to be signed by the end of this year. Rural broadband will greatly help economic development and growth in rural areas as people in those areas tap into the same Internet speeds currently enjoyed by their urban counterparts. 
Rahui Katene 
: What action has the Government taken to ensure Maori involvement in the broadband roll-out in the regions? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Expectations of community consultation including with iwi was part of the request for proposals of the Rural Broadband Initiative. The request for proposal notes that indications of community support including from iwi will be one of the criteria used in assessing partners that the Government will choose. Maori can choose to approach commercial bidders about becoming partners but at the very least Maori are informed about the broadband developments that will provide better services to their communities. Officials have also liaised with iwi groups including through face-to-face meetings where appropriate.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15247] 
9. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she have confidence in all of the changes to employment relations legislation and policy that she has introduced or proposed since becoming the Minister of Labour? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: Yes. 
Carol Beaumont 
: How can the Minister be confident that the changes to the Employment Relations Act and the Holidays Act will help to improve productivity when the Department of Labour told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in its financial review hearing this morning that lots of the changes would be very hard to link directly to improving productivity? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is quite clear when we look at the bill that there are a large number of actions that will help improve the productivity of the New Zealand workforce in their collective interest. I am quite confident about that. 
Carol Beaumont 
: How can anyone have confidence in the Minister’s commitment to improving skills in the workplace given that there is not a single mention of the skills forum in the Department of Labour’s 2010 annual report that she has not held a single meeting of the skills forum this year despite indicating that there would be five and that the department confirmed to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the decision to hold no skills forum meetings has been entirely hers? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is quite clear in the labour portfolio that this Government is focused on actions rather than endless meetings strategies action plans— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Task forces. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —task forces pilots and groups. This Government is focused on action and certainly the Hon Kate Wilkinson is an action woman. 
Darien Fenton 
: How can she be confident that her 90-day trial period scheme will improve productivity and skills given that we have heard of yet another example today where a skilled chef was fired under the scheme for using too much sauce and aioli? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Quite easily. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear the supplementary question and the level of background noise is too high. 
Darien Fenton 
: Given that the Department of Labour confirmed to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee this morning that she is proposing changes to the Minimum Wage Act can she guarantee that those changes will not disadvantage any minimum wage earner or result in any workers being entitled to even less pay than they currently earn? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am sure the member will become aware of that matter when it is appropriate to make the member aware. I can say that the Minister is focused on providing employees with more choice and is focused on how we can create more jobs in this economy for the future of New Zealand.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15244] 
6. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received on the level of public satisfaction with the services provided by the New Zealand Police? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am very pleased to report that the latest Citizens’ Satisfaction Survey shows a high level of public trust and confidence in the New Zealand Police. The ratings show the percentage of people who have full or quite a lot of trust and confidence in the police has increased over the last 2 years from 69 percent to 75 percent. In addition the rating of overall satisfaction with service delivery remains high; 79 percent of people who had contact with the police were satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of the service they received. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What does the survey indicate about people’s perception of safety in their communities? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: People’s perception of safety in their neighbourhood city or town centre has improved since 2008. The rating for safety in the neighbourhood after dark has increased from 65 percent to 70 percent. There has also been an increase in the proportion of people feeling safe or very safe in their city or town centre after dark from 42 percent to 48 percent. The results of the survey reflect the ongoing effort and commitment of police staff around the country to provide the best possible service to their communities. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why should not the public of New Zealand believe Sergeant Sean Judd of Westport a front-line officer who said publicly in September of this year: “We just don’t have the numbers and unfortunately the public have noticed and are not happy. They want to know why we are not out on the beat and the fact is we would like nothing more but because we are so under resourced it is just not happening.”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is very difficult when the member comes to the House and quotes a serving officer and names him like that. Quite frankly that sergeant can know that this Government will put 600 extra police on the front line by the end of next year. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table the September edition—No. 8 Volume 43—of  
Police News 
 from which that quote came. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. [ 
Interruption 
] A point of order is being dealt with—the member’s own point of order. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:668;Page:15235] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am sure you are right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure whether the Speaker should be involved in that. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am sure the member is right—my apologies Mr Speaker.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Volume:668;Page:15235] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I convey our thanks to the Leader of the House for the suggested bills for next week. I was going to clarify with him the issue of question time but the Deputy Leader of the House has done that. I am sure that will be of great interest to the 36 first-year Maori nursing students from Whitireia Community Polytechnic who are visiting Parliament today.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:668;Page:15235] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next Tuesday the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) will receive its first reading and the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill will receive its third reading. The House will take urgency from Tuesday evening onwards to consider a range of bills that have been recently notified to all parties. The Government intends to take questions each day.
Urgent Debates Declined — National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research—Water-quality Report 
Urgent Debates Declined — National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research—Water-quality Report 
[Volume:668;Page:15251] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research—Water-quality Report 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Charles Chauvel seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd report on  
Lake water quality in New Zealand 2010: Status and trends 
. 
This is a particular case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility. Although on occasion the release of a report may warrant an urgent debate the circumstances must be exceptional. This issue is an important one but the time to consider it is when the steps that need to be taken to improve freshwater quality emerge from the consultation process that the Government currently has under way. In these circumstances I do not believe that setting aside the House’s business for an urgent debate today can be justified. The application is therefore declined.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:668;Page:15235] 
Thursday 11 November 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next Tuesday the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) will receive its first reading and the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill will receive its third reading. The House will take urgency from Tuesday evening onwards to consider a range of bills that have been recently notified to all parties. The Government intends to take questions each day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I convey our thanks to the Leader of the House for the suggested bills for next week. I was going to clarify with him the issue of question time but the Deputy Leader of the House has done that. I am sure that will be of great interest to the 36 first-year Maori nursing students from Whitireia Community Polytechnic who are visiting Parliament today. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am sure you are right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure whether the Speaker should be involved in that. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am sure the member is right—my apologies Mr Speaker.
Goodhew Jo: Sittings of the House 
Goodhew Jo: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:668;Page:15234] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 Given that the House has made progress and in order for the next member speaking to complete her speech all in one hit so to speak I seek leave for the House to now rise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Barker Rick: Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15234] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I do not need any more assistance on this. The Hon John Carter has set out the position very clearly. The whips have authority to cast votes on behalf of the parties. I accept as I and the House must always accept the honesty and integrity of the whips. The whips have cast their votes. The vote stands and in my opinion the request does not meet the test on two counts: firstly the vote was not particularly close; and secondly no material reason has been given to show that there would be any difference. The vote stands and we will now call on the next order of the day.
Carter John: Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter John: Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15234] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 Ever since that Standing Order was brought to the House it has been well known that there has to be very clear evidence to the Speaker that there is some issue around the votes cast by the whips before the Speaker would consider having a personal vote. There is no clear evidence that there would be any change if a personal vote was held. Speakers have ruled on this on quite a number of occasions while I have been here over those years. I suggest that given that there is no evidence there is no reason for you to declare a personal vote. 
Metiria Turei 
: Point of order.
Kedgley Sue: Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15233] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave under Standing Order 140 to have a personal vote following a party vote. The Standing Orders as you will know specify that a personal vote may be held following a party vote if a member requests one—which I am doing—and if the Speaker considers that the decision on the party vote was close and that a personal vote may make a material difference to the result. I believe that if a personal vote was held it would make a very material difference to the vote and I therefore request under Standing Order 140 that a personal vote be held.
Vote: Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15233] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 39; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independent: Carter. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The result corrected after orignally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 62.
Vote: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15221] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill.
Henare Tau: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Henare Tau: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15221] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 No reply. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Then I will put the question.
Bennett David: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Bennett David: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15209] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I want to support my colleague Tau Henare who has done a fantastic job in bringing the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill to the House. Labour members could not find a problem with this bill and they wanted to support it but they got a phone call from Helen Kelly an hour before tonight’s debate saying that Labour could not support it. She got on the phone and she went to Labour members and said that they could not support this legislation. She said the unions needed Labour’s support otherwise they would not campaign for Labour next year. That is what would have happened an hour ago. 
Poor Tau! Tau brought this bill into the House with genuine intentions. He took it through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and there were submissions on it. The Labour Party now says “No” to the bill and it is saying this only at the last minute because it cannot handle it and it has to do what it is told to do by the unions. I think that is a sad case. It is a very sad case for this Parliament when one of the political parties in it cannot stand up for what it believes in. Labour does not have a problem with this bill; it does not see this bill as a problem. In fact if there is a problem then Trevor identified it. He talked about one of his mates who had been fixing votes and he said that there was no problem but that one of his mates had sort of done that so there must have been a case that he was talking about. Legislation is needed when people break the rules like that. This legislation has good values and it is needed. Thank you.
Vote: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15206] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 39; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Borrows Chester: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Borrows Chester: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15205] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I am sure members on the other side of the House will be surprised about that! I do not believe that this bill is rubbish by any means. I endorse the words of my colleague who made the point that this is about freedom of association and freedom of choice. That is something that the other side of the House rails in support of at every possible opportunity except when it comes to this. I wonder why that might be. 
I believe that any student attending any tertiary education institution in this country should have the ability to choose whether they want to belong to an association of students. I recall my time at university not too long ago where as a mature student I trundled along and like all mature students I sat in the first two rows of the lecture theatre because I could not see the whiteboard and I could not hear the lecturer. Like all the other mature students I brought my pencil case and I had my coloured highlighters and my ring binder—and the skinny little bugger who was 20 years old and came in with half a refill and a biro between his teeth got all the A’s and I got all the C+’s. 
The student union did not do much for me. In fact I did an awful lot for the student union when I was there not because I had paid a subscription or felt that I wanted to get my money’s worth but because I wanted to. That is why people should belong to students associations and that is why people should belong to unions. It should be because they want to help and they want to do something not because they are forced to or intimidated into doing it. I am pleased to support this bill.
Goodhew Jo: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15204] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is most certainly not complete rubbish as the member opposite Moana Mackey said. There are some key messages I want to reinforce as we draw to a close this bill’s second reading. We in National believe in getting the most out of every single dollar we spend in tertiary education. I know that at least one member opposite has heard that message once already this evening. We also want to see that students get value for money. Certainly this bill has given a large number of students a wake-up call. It has given them the opportunity to reflect on whether they are getting value for money. 
There has been a really interesting development in recent weeks. You see the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association has suddenly started asking students what they want. Is it not enlightening that that should happen probably because of this bill? National believes in freedom of association and personal choice. I guess one of the disturbing aspects of this bill for me was to hear about some of the services being provided by the students associations that were nice but I did not instinctively think they were core student services. This bill will mean that students associations look to what they should provide to what the students will support and to where the provision of those services should most usefully lie. National is committed to supporting students moving towards a much more accountable and higher-performing tertiary sector. I certainly believe that this bill is one step in that direction and I am very happy to support it.
Mackey Moana: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mackey Moana: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15204] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Labour will be opposing this legislation. We will be opposing it because it is not about choice; it is about taking away choice from universities with students associations like Waikato University. It first voted to get rid of compulsory student membership and then had to vote to bring it back because voluntary student membership was such a resounding failure and the student association fell apart. That university made a democratic choice to keep compulsory student membership and this legislation removes the ability of that university to exercise its democratic right to choose compulsory student membership as it did. Following the enactment of this legislation it will be forced to follow the 2 percent of people who voted for the ACT Party in support of voluntary student membership. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is complete rubbish.
Vote: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15204] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15204] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 6 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Blue Jackie: Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Blue Jackie: Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15231] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the first reading of the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Animal Welfare Act to phase out the exception in section 73 that allows in exceptional circumstances practices that do not meet best practice as set out in that Act. There is no doubt the intentions of this bill are admirable and laudable. However National is reviewing fully the Animal Welfare Act next year. This will be done in a very systematic comprehensive and thorough way. 
Animal welfare is a priority for this Government. We passed the Animal Welfare Amendment Act to increase penalties for animal cruelty and abuse. The Government has delivered the biggest boost in Government funding for animal welfare over recent years. It equates to an extra $8.2 million over 4 years. The Government has doubled the number of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry animal welfare enforcement officers. We have also developed and introduced major new codes regarding animal welfare. 
No one in this House supports animal cruelty. No one would want to see any animal suffer. This is a well-intentioned bill but National will not be supporting it. There will be a major review of the Act next year and it will be thorough and systematic. 
The Government is also concerned about unintended consequences. The officials advise that this bill could undermine the ability of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to offer independent expert advice on animal welfare matters to the Minister. It has also been pointed out that it could empower the Minister to revoke or amend a code of welfare unilaterally without seeking independent advice from that committee. It could end up leaving politicians to develop animal welfare policy rather than the experts when clearly it should be the experts. There are other unintended consequences as well. 
I make the point again that the law needs to be drafted carefully thoroughly and methodically. The principal Act will be reviewed thoroughly next year. This is a well-intentioned bill. No one wants to see animals suffer. The Government does support animal welfare but we will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.
Quinn Paul: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15188] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Somewhere in the Standing Orders I am allowed to upon resumption of the seat of the previous speaker correct a statement of fact. He claimed that I sat on the select committee— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member can take a call and do that; I would need to look up the Standing Order. Does the member want to seek leave to correct it? What is the member doing? [ 
Interruption 
] I will take a call.
Hughes Darren: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15184] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave also for members to be able to make more than the usual four calls they would have if we were doing this clause by clause. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is also sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Tisch Lindsay: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15204] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted.
Nash Stuart: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Nash Stuart: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15168] 
12. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: When will the “new research and development tax credit” described in the speech on behalf of the Minister of Revenue in the first reading of the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill come into force? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I hate to disappoint the member but no such measure is proposed in the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill. Last night the Minister who was introducing the bill in my absence was provided with the wrong speech by my office. I take full responsibility for this embarrassing error. I have apologised to the Minister for the situation that he was placed in and I now do likewise to the House. I seek leave to table the speech that should have been given last night. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether there is some way of having the document published in order to get it more widely circulated or whether it could be— 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I would be happy to give it— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Take leave to do it. Take leave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member quite finished? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes he should have left ages ago. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the Leader of the House now and to the Hon Trevor Mallard that when I am on my feet they will not do that. I accept that today I have let things get a bit messy. That is my fault; I took the point of order as being in good humour. Let us move on. 
David Shearer 
: Given that the Minister was also the Minister of Revenue in 2008 and praised the research and development tax credit what has changed his mind now? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member was not here at the time that the tax credit was repealed after the 2008 election but his colleagues would be able to tell him if they bothered to check that I voted against that particular provision of the legislation at that time. 
Stuart Nash 
: If the Minister himself had given last night’s speech would he have realised that it was not the correct speech before during or after the speech was delivered? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I would have clearly realised that long before the speech was due to be given and would have given the correct speech which I have just tabled.
Peachey Allan: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Peachey Allan: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15217] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Well I feel like I have just been subjected to a tutorial on 19th century class warfare. I thank the member who has just resumed her seat Carol Beaumont for that. It has brought home to me just how far the Labour Party has not come. What a mystery that party has become to me! Labour used to boast and rightly so about its origins amongst the working class of this country. What has it transformed itself into now? Well that was never better illustrated than by the two previous Labour speeches: Labour is a party that has been reduced to representing the union organisers and bosses. I invite Ms Beaumont and Ms Fenton to spend a little bit of time out among the working-class people of the electorates they seem to be parading in. 
Carol Beaumont 
: We do. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: If Ms Beaumont would like one day just to cross Point England Road into the Tamaki electorate and be among the working-class people of Glen Innes she will get a very clear message and that message is that the working-class families of that area welcome this legislation. They welcome it because it is the final protection of their democratic rights. What this bill does—and I give credit to my colleague Mr Henare for initiating it—is finally guarantee to union members the most basic of all democratic rights. 
It has been really interesting to observe the Labour Party in this debate. When the Hon Trevor Mallard spoke I almost felt like we were flies on the wall of their caucus room—that big room on the third floor of Parliament House. It must seem a big room for so few people. When I heard Mr Mallard’s speech—and I will look at the  
Hansard 
 tomorrow—I suspect that by changing maybe six key words it could have been a speech in favour of this bill. I sense that that is where he is at but the old warhorse was rolled by the youngsters. I can just see it in the caucus. They have had their discussion about the leadership and it has been inconclusive. They have had a bit of a gossip about whether Chris Carter will resign and whether there will be a by-election—and oh my goodness Judith Tizard might be back! Now they have come to this bill. 
Mr Mallard and the experienced heads know that the Labour Party is betraying its tradition if it votes against this bill. What we have got from this debate is a very very clear indication from the Labour Party that in opposing this bill it has turned its back on its tradition of representing the average working-class people of New Zealand. It has fallen once again to the National Government to my colleagues on this side of the House to introduce legislation that provides workers with the ultimate protection. There is no greater protection in a democracy than the right to a secret ballot. When this bill passes the workers of New Zealand who choose to belong to a union will have that right.