edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6496] 
5.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received on primary health care? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 New research from the Commonwealth Fund shows that New Zealand has one of the world’s best primary health care systems. New Zealand general practitioners are leaders in the use of information technology electronic patient records electronic laboratory results and so on. New Zealand also has much better provision for after-hours primary care than do many nations. Our practices perform strongly in many measures of quality and New Zealand has good levels of service coordination. Our primary health care providers have much to be proud of but as always there is still room for improvement. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has he received any reports on aspects of our primary health care system that need improvement and has he seen proposals to address any shortcomings? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I have. The Commonwealth Fund report shows that New Zealanders still find going to a general practitioner too expensive. However the research was done only part-way through the low fees roll-out and is therefore a very strong endorsement of Government policy in that regard. I am concerned however that the National Party is still on record as supporting higher doctors’ fees for patients. Its members should study the Commonwealth Fund findings closely. They really do need to get on with their inevitable U-turn. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it not time the Minister of Health stopped picking the eyes out of various reports and admitted to the House that the most damning fact in this entire survey which the authors have made very clear in the report is that based on doctors’ reports long waits for elective surgery appear to be the norm in New Zealand; is it not time that he admitted that this Government is failing to deal with the desperate elective surgery needs of patients in this country? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is absolutely correct. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Tell the full story. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am agreeing with the member if he would just like to hold his breath for a little while. I am on his side. I think the finding that New Zealanders— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not too close. Don’t get too close. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No we will not get too close. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member who asked the question was heard in silence. Would members please give the member who is answering the question the same courtesy. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I agree with the member who asked the question and indeed that is a strong showing in the fund’s report. It was however research that was done around May or June of this year and since then most of our district health boards have at long last moved to a situation where people will receive their surgery within 6 months. At the moment we have about 13 or 14 district health boards complying with that and by Christmas time we will have nearly all of them complying. The very thing that that report showed is the very thing that this Government has fixed.
Wilson Margaret: Privilege — Reflection on the Conduct of a Member 
Wilson Margaret: Privilege — Reflection on the Conduct of a Member 
[Volume:635;Page:6489] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Hon Peter Dunne has raised with me as a matter of privilege an email newsletter Robson-On-Politics e-news published on the  
Scoop  
website of 1 November 2006. The newsletter discusses the role of the United Future party as a support party for the Government. It examines the position of the party on various issues including alcohol and tobacco. In his newsletter Mr Robson states: “The liquor industry’s support for Peter Dunne as with that of the tobacco has always meant that he has faithfully delivered his vote for their interests”. 
Standing Order 400(n) establishes that the House may treat as a contempt reflections on “the character or conduct of a member … in the member’s capacity as a member of the House”. Its purpose is to protect members going about the business of the House from unfounded scurrilous allegations of serious impropriety or corruption. To allege that a member is under the control of someone outside the House is a reflection against that member. To make such a statement in the House would not be in order. An allegation that an industry has supported a member in order to obtain his or her vote cast in the House could certainly be taken to be an allegation that a member has been dictated to by an outside body. 
The fact that a matter is out of order does not of itself establish a contempt. The allegation made can reasonably be interpreted as directly reflecting on Mr Dunne’s character and conduct as a member of the House. However to constitute a contempt the reflection on Mr Dunne must also be shown to carry with it an implication that Mr Dunne’s relationship with the liquor industry or the tobacco industry is corrupt or otherwise improper. I am satisfied that to allege that Mr Dunne has “faithfully delivered his vote” as a result of support from the industries concerned could carry such an implication. Whether or not it actually does is for the Privileges Committee and ultimately the House to decide. Accordingly I have determined that the statement in the newsletter does involve a question of privilege in that it may constitute a reflection on the character or conduct of a member in the member’s capacity as a member of the House. Consequently the question of privilege stands referred to the Privileges Committee.
Privilege — Reflection on the Conduct of a Member 
Privilege — Reflection on the Conduct of a Member 
[Volume:635;Page:6489] 
Privilege 
Reflection on the Conduct of a Member 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Hon Peter Dunne has raised with me as a matter of privilege an email newsletter Robson-On-Politics e-news published on the  
Scoop  
website of 1 November 2006. The newsletter discusses the role of the United Future party as a support party for the Government. It examines the position of the party on various issues including alcohol and tobacco. In his newsletter Mr Robson states: “The liquor industry’s support for Peter Dunne as with that of the tobacco has always meant that he has faithfully delivered his vote for their interests”. 
Standing Order 400(n) establishes that the House may treat as a contempt reflections on “the character or conduct of a member … in the member’s capacity as a member of the House”. Its purpose is to protect members going about the business of the House from unfounded scurrilous allegations of serious impropriety or corruption. To allege that a member is under the control of someone outside the House is a reflection against that member. To make such a statement in the House would not be in order. An allegation that an industry has supported a member in order to obtain his or her vote cast in the House could certainly be taken to be an allegation that a member has been dictated to by an outside body. 
The fact that a matter is out of order does not of itself establish a contempt. The allegation made can reasonably be interpreted as directly reflecting on Mr Dunne’s character and conduct as a member of the House. However to constitute a contempt the reflection on Mr Dunne must also be shown to carry with it an implication that Mr Dunne’s relationship with the liquor industry or the tobacco industry is corrupt or otherwise improper. I am satisfied that to allege that Mr Dunne has “faithfully delivered his vote” as a result of support from the industries concerned could carry such an implication. Whether or not it actually does is for the Privileges Committee and ultimately the House to decide. Accordingly I have determined that the statement in the newsletter does involve a question of privilege in that it may constitute a reflection on the character or conduct of a member in the member’s capacity as a member of the House. Consequently the question of privilege stands referred to the Privileges Committee.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:635;Page:6489] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Local Government and Environment Committee to have authority to meet in Australia from 27 November to 1 December 2006 and to adopt such procedures and practices as are suitable for the conduct of its business. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:635;Page:6489] 
Wednesday 15 November 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
Business of Select Committees 
Meetings 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Local Government and Environment Committee to have authority to meet in Australia from 27 November to 1 December 2006 and to adopt such procedures and practices as are suitable for the conduct of its business. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Brown Peter: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6828] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not intend to take a long call. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Good. 
PETER BROWN 
: I thank the member for that. I think that much about this bill has already been said and it has been hanging around for so long now that it really needs to be passed this evening. The wonder boys and weirdos who get involved in this practice have to be stopped. We have to put a stop to them. This bill is addressing a sickening type of attitude that is coming more and more to the fore in this country and it is somewhat urgently required to address this practice. 
I think the National Party made some very good points when its members said— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What? 
PETER BROWN 
: We have to be fair. The bill does not include covert audio recordings. I think that is a legitimate concern also. If the matter was raised at the select committee I think there should have been some comment on why it was left out and why it has not been addressed. I think the bill would have been a lot better for addressing that. 
As for taking photographs or visual recordings with consent then selling them I think that is also a fairly sickening practice but I guess there is some advice there. If people are the subject of a recording or a video then they certainly want to keep control of it in their own hands. There is some opportunity to control it. But I agree that for it to be sold or put on the Internet without permission is not the way it should be done and this bill had an opportunity to address that. 
The third area that the National Party did not raise is that maybe we should look at putting some controls on emails that go from place to place. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That’s the next bill—the next one off the rank. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is the next bill is it? I thought the National Party had some interest in the transferring of emails from one area to another without permission. 
This bill needs to be passed tonight so I do not intend to take one second longer. New Zealand First will support the bill.
Yates Dianne: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Yates Dianne: Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6825] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 As the previous chair of the Government Administration Committee it gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill. This bill came out of an inquiry into the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act after the issue was highlighted by Bill Hastings the chief censor at the time. When we were looking at that legislation we were looking at matters of pornography. As the previous speaker pointed out another issue always comes up; when we start talking about one area somebody says: “Hey what about this?”. 
This was a matter that Bill Hastings the chief censor and some other submitters brought to the committee’s attention. They said that now that we have the technology and people have cellphones with digital cameras in them we have a problem. Bill Hastings showed us some examples of people who had been sneaking cameras into dressing rooms at swimming pools gymnasiums and so on and not only taking pictures—which is an invasion of privacy—but also onselling those pictures. 
Bill Hastings said that this matter should be included in the Crimes Act and it has taken some time for this bill to come to the House. I am really really pleased that we have got it through to this third reading stage and that there will be an amendment to the Crimes Act. I thank Bill Hastings for pointing this matter out and I thank members opposite for pointing out other issues that have since come up such as covert audio tapings and so on which will also need to be dealt with. 
As has been said this bill is about peeping Toms and Thomasinas—to be politically correct in the language. It is about people using technology in ways that are not appropriate. This is not to say that people cannot take baby pictures and so on. This bill is about people who take films of other people and use them in ways that are to the detriment of those people and to the detriment of society in terms of what is considered appropriate. 
I thank the select committee that carried on the work that had been done previously. I thank all the officials and everybody who worked on this bill. I thank the present Minister of Justice Mark Burton and the previous Minister Phil Goff who agreed initially that this should become legislation to alter the Crimes Act. This bill has taken a long time; it has taken years. Sometimes good things in this Parliament do take a long time but eventually we get there. 
Once again I thank everyone who has been involved. I also thank the submitters. We sometimes forget those good people in the country who bother to read those advertisements in the back of the newspaper who bother to write in and give their opinions and who come before select committees to talk through issues. It is always good to thank them for their effort and their interest. In this case it is about keeping our society a decent society which is what I am sure everyone in this House would want. Thank you once again Mr Deputy Speaker.
Vote: Income Tax Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Income Tax Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6802] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Income Tax Bill be now read a first time.. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4.
Swain Paul: Income Tax Bill — First Reading 
Swain Paul: Income Tax Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6798] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I rise to speak in favour of the bill. A number of good comments have been made to date so I will not prolong the debate but will just say that this bill is non-controversial even though the previous speaker took us into some controversial matters not related to the bill. This is essentially a technical rewrite of our Income Tax Act and as a result there are no policy changes in it. The strange thing I suppose for the select committee is that it is the one time that a select committee has to make sure that no policy has changed. This will be an interesting perspective for a select committee given that most select committees are looking to ensure that the policy changes that have been taken to the select committee by legislation are implemented. 
The purpose of the rewrite has been to clarify the tax code by redrafting the Act into modern plain language while retaining the original meaning and intent of the provisions. I remember always that great quote from John Shewan a tax consultant who said on radio: “Explaining tax law to people is like trying to explain television to a goldfish.” I hope that as a result of this rewrite the goldfish will finally get it. 
 As Peter Dunne the Minister of Revenue has said this has been a project over four stages begun by the previous National Government in the 1990s and today heading towards completion under a Labour-led Government and under the guidance of Peter Dunne. As has been said the bill we are debating today is really a rewrite of the remaining parts of the Act and this represents the fourth and final stage of the project. The changes contained in the bill are of two kinds: changes made in the interests of simplicity and clarity and changes approved by the rewrite advisory panel in consultation with professional tax groups. 
So this is a major piece of work and a number of people have been involved in this project for a very long period of time: Ivor Richardson who has been mentioned; Arthur Valabh; and others. This is world-leading legislation and I commend it to the House.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:635;Page:6795] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion between the whips I seek leave for Government orders of the day Nos 3 to 7 to be taken as one debate. Clearly separate votes will be taken on the individual bills. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:635;Page:6795] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion between the whips I seek leave for Government orders of the day Nos 3 to 7 to be taken as one debate. Clearly separate votes will be taken on the individual bills. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Tolley Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tolley Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6795] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter from Presbyterian Support East Coast in which it declines the $500 koha on the grounds of its being an insult to its staff. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6793] 
11.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector 
: What steps is the Government taking to strengthen the capability and skills of communities? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 Recently I launched the Community Resource Kit. This kit contains practical information on setting up and running community and voluntary groups—for example advice on good governance financial planning and management. It is specifically useful for new or emerging community organisations. The Community Resource Kit is available online at www.community.net.nz for anyone to download. It will make a real contribution to strengthening the sector. 
Tim Barnett 
: What else has the Government done to strengthen the capability and skills of the community and voluntary sector? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: This Labour-led Government values the contribution made by the community and voluntary sector. Recent practical examples include Keeping it Legal: E Ai Ki Te Ture a resource kit to help voluntary groups manage their legal responsibilities; Managing Well a catalogue of information resources and support; and the Digital Strategy Community Partnership Fund 2006-07 round which I recently launched. This fund will assist communities to take full advantage of information and communications technologies and to use them with confidence.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6791] 
9.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What recent announcements has the Minister made concerning ACC and physiotherapy services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Recently I announced the details of a review of the Accident Compensation Corporation’s interaction with and funding of physiotherapy services. This review forms part of the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour-led Government and New Zealand First and I look forward to working closely with the member who asked the question on this very issue. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister advise the House on what the review will encompass? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The review will examine the way in which physiotherapy services are funded and accredited. It will also look at the rehabilitation outcomes of accident compensation claimants as well as at the corporation’s relationship with the physiotherapy sector. 
Peter Brown 
: Has the Minister received any reports about the funding of physiotherapy services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Actually I have. I have received a report that shows physiotherapy services were reviewed during the time of the last National Government. The review took place in 1992 and actually resulted in funding being slashed by 15 percent. A result like that will not happen under this review as our Government is committed to having an appropriately funded and a sustainable physiotherapy sector.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:635;Page:6781] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is possible that the member will have to get up in time for an adjournment debate in the late hours of the morning but it should not worry him too much—if it is over by midday he will still be able to get lunch.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:635;Page:6781] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 5 December priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Maori Purposes Bill the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill and the first readings of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill and the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. The House will also need to consider a notice of motion in relation to the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That was a very extensive list given to the House by the Deputy Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether he intends at this stage to conclude the year with urgency in order that an adjournment debate might be buried in the late hours of the morning and therefore avoid media scrutiny? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is possible that the member will have to get up in time for an adjournment debate in the late hours of the morning but it should not worry him too much—if it is over by midday he will still be able to get lunch.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:635;Page:6781] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That was a very extensive list given to the House by the Deputy Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether he intends at this stage to conclude the year with urgency in order that an adjournment debate might be buried in the late hours of the morning and therefore avoid media scrutiny?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:635;Page:6781] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 5 December priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Maori Purposes Bill the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill and the first readings of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill and the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. The House will also need to consider a notice of motion in relation to the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — South Australia—Minister for the River Murray and for Small Business 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — South Australia—Minister for the River Murray and for Small Business 
[Volume:635;Page:6781] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon. KarleneMaywald Minister for the River Murray and Minister for Small Business from the House of Assembly South Australia is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish to make her welcome.
Visitors — South Australia—Minister for the River Murray and for Small Business 
Visitors — South Australia—Minister for the River Murray and for Small Business 
[Volume:635;Page:6781] 
Thursday 23 November 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
South Australia—Minister for the River Murray and for Small Business 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon. KarleneMaywald Minister for the River Murray and Minister for Small Business from the House of Assembly South Australia is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish to make her welcome.
Beyer Georgina: Protection of Personal and Property Rights  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Protection of Personal and Property Rights  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7039] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a brief call on the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. I think this is a fantastic bill to support and so soon after the first reading yesterday of New Zealand First’s Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill which also honoured elderly people in this country. I chair the Social Services Committee and I take on board the comments from the member who just resumed her seat Kate Wilkinson. I am certain that with the talent that lies around that table—particularly on the Labour side—the bill will be scrutinised most appropriately and well by all involved in that process. Therefore I shall not tarry any longer. I say only that I hope support is found fully around the House.
Wilkinson Kate: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and  Validation) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Third Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and  Validation) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7034] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I do not want to forgo the opportunity to speak on the third reading of this wonderfully exciting bill! I am not going to repeat what I said in my speech on the second reading except to say that although it is a formal and technical bill it nonetheless is a very important bill. It is important to look at the policy behind the regulations. It is also a bill that has to be passed before the end of the year to avoid the orders and various regulations mentioned in the bill actually lapsing. National supports the third reading. 
Bill read a third time.
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and  Validation) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and  Validation) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7033] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. The bill confirms and validates 18 Orders in Council. It must be enacted by 31 December to avoid the subordinate legislation lapsing. The bill was referred to the Regulations Review Committee on 9 November 2006. The committee called for explanations by the seven departments administering the 18 orders. These orders cover rates of annual increase in social security benefits New Zealand superannuation and war pensions; orders made under the Customs and Excise Act; orders made under the Tariff Act; and a range of orders made under the Commodity Levies Act. The committee was satisfied with those explanations and presented its report on 27 November recommending that the bill be passed without amendment. I thank the select committee for its expeditious consideration of this bill under the excellent chairmanship of Dr Richard Worth—whose reward for this sadly was to be demoted in the reshuffle of the National Party.
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and  Validation) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and  Validation) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7034] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:636;Page:7033] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill / Maori Land Amendment Bill the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill the Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 43; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bills read a third time.
Jones Shane: Third Readings 
Jones Shane: Third Readings 
[Volume:636;Page:7032] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Obviously I arise to support the inevitable passage of this legislation. There are three things I would like us to bear in mind. This legislation is a statement of how difficult challenging but inevitably rewarding it is to be progressive. 
First I heard earlier this afternoon the concerns of our colleagues in the Maori Party who talked in very florid—should I say treacherous—language about tyranny. I say to them: “Do not come to this House and use the language of tyranny when you refuse to stand and oppose but rather condone the coup in Fiji. And do not dress up that double standard with the language of indigenous rights. That brings into dispute the proud tradition of our tupuna in relation to the Treaty—the proud tradition that we as celebrators of the democratic franchise have fought for held and celebrated in this House every day. There is no tyranny in Aotearoa that you can speak of if you tolerate the tyranny we are seeing through the barrel of a gun in Fiji.” 
Secondly this legislation states the inevitable. The inevitable is claims for compensation because historical grievances are drawing to an end. The focus of our young people and the leadership of each tribe must be on how to enlarge the pie for all New Zealanders. What stirring of pride there was for the brief period of time when we saw the potential of the great stadium that was never to be—and could not be—called Stadium Aotearoa. That is the sort of vision that this legislation is based on. It is not one that locks us into constantly arguing about the ills of colonialism; it is one that says we must rise above that bout of historical discord and focus on our role in the globe. We will never go there by listening to dated tedious predictable speeches that lack inspiration originality and freshness and that are undermined by double standards and a willingness to condone the coup of Fiji. 
The third thing is that this legislation will provide a very good choice for the voters in a couple of years’ time. I doubt whether those members will actually be back because as a consequence of their shoddy and very disappointing speeches in this House there will in my view be one less Maori seat rather than one more. 
This legislation is the seed for the future—an end to discord an investment in the future. This will free our young people from that tripe we hear every day about colonialism and grievance breeding a festering sore in the minds of our young people that somehow by dwelling on the injustices of history we will have a brighter future. Kia ora tatou katoa.
Turner Judy: Third Readings 
Turner Judy: Third Readings 
[Volume:636;Page:7031] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third readings of the bills arising from the Maori Purposes Bill. United Future does not enjoy representation on the Maori Affairs Committee; therefore we have had to rely on the report from the select committee and discussions with committee members. 
When I read the early draft of the original bill I was not surprised at what turned out to be its controversial part. It sort of jumped out at me. However United Future has always supported the establishment of a closing date for lodging claims. Perhaps our only question regarding this provision was about the time frame being a little shorter than we personally would have recommended. Our policy talked about it being 2010. I have talked to members of the select committee and asked them whether in the current environment they feel 2008 is a fair date. I was assured certainly by National and Labour MPs that they feel comfortable with that being established as the date. 
We certainly support the provisions to build the capacity of the Maori Land Court. We think that is a noble idea and should be advanced. We also support the clearer definition that is now going to be given as to what constitutes historical claims. We are pleased about the added definition in that area and also that the closing date does not preclude current claims having amendments made to them. I think that is a necessary provision. We do of course support the amendments to both the Maori Fisheries Act and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act. 
I did not intend to take a long call but I just want to say that I personally believe in the contemporary relevance of the Treaty. I feel that until we as a nation address historical grievances it will be very difficult to convince a large number of our citizens of that fact. United Future continues to support any move by the Government to better resource the work of the tribunal to enable greater self-determination for those iwis still awaiting settlement. We support this bill.
Turei Metiria: Third Readings 
Turei Metiria: Third Readings 
[Volume:636;Page:7029] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will not support any kind of race-hate agenda. The National Party has promoted a race-hate agenda. The Labour Government is enacting this agenda in this legislation and every party that supports this legislation supports that agenda. The Green Party does not and we will oppose this legislation.
Dunne Peter: Appointments — Ombudsman 
Dunne Peter: Appointments — Ombudsman 
[Volume:636;Page:7020] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I too want to support the appointment of Mel Smith as a temporary Ombudsman for the third time. He has performed with distinction on two previous occasions. I have had the privilege of working with him in both those roles and also in his earlier career as a public servant. Mel Smith is one of New Zealand’s finest in every respect and he will bring great distinction to this office albeit for the short period of his appointment.
Locke Keith: Appointments — Ombudsman 
Locke Keith: Appointments — Ombudsman 
[Volume:636;Page:7020] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the appointment of Mel Smith. He has a distinguished record not only in his previous work as an Ombudsman but in the justice system and looking at prison conditions which is a major part of the Ombudsmen’s duties. That has developed a bit since the recent passing in the House of the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill which has appointed the Ombudsmen’s office as one of the national preventive mechanisms under the international arrangements and treaties to look at any torture or ill-treatment in our prisons. I think he would be well suited to be part of doing the Ombudsmen’s work in that area. I indicate the importance of the procedure we are going through now of having an appointment made by the House rather than by the executive branch. It does reinforce the independence of the Ombudsmen’s office and it was one of the features in the discussion on the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill that the national preventive mechanisms should be fully independent from the executive and should be responsible primarily to Parliament.
Tisch Lindsay: Appointments — Ombudsman 
Tisch Lindsay: Appointments — Ombudsman 
[Volume:636;Page:7019] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Mr Mel Smith was first appointed an Ombudsman in December 2001 and then reappointed for a 2-year period in June 2003. I spoke on his reappointment on 31 March 2005 which expired in December 2005 and today National has pleasure in supporting the appointment of Mr Smith as an additional Ombudsman for 6 months. The demands on the Ombudsmen’s office are increasing. It is interesting to note that they currently have 1040 files which are live files and possibly the office should be looking at the appointment of a third full-time Ombudsman. It is important that this appointment be made now and I understand that Mr Smith could start next Monday on 11 December. National acknowledges the past commitment of Mr Smith and his expertise and experience necessary for this office. We are indeed indebted to his availability at this time. National has much pleasure in supporting Mr Smith’s appointment.
Brown Peter: Appointments — Ombudsman 
Brown Peter: Appointments — Ombudsman 
[Volume:636;Page:7020] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First endorses all those comments. We have had close liaison and discussions with Mr Smith over the last few years. We find him an affable man a very competent man; he is very conscientious; he is very determined to get to the bottom of a particular issue and we cannot speak highly enough of Mr Smith. We would welcome him being an Ombudsman on a permanent basis but we endorse all the comments that have gone before.
Cullen Michael: Appointments — Ombudsman 
Cullen Michael: Appointments — Ombudsman 
[Volume:636;Page:7019] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 8 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Melwyn Purefoy Smith of Wellington as an additional Ombudsman for a period of 6 months. 
 A request was made to the Officers of Parliament Committee by the Chief Ombudsman for the appointment of Mel Smith for a 6-month period and the committee was satisfied that the reasons were appropriate in this particular case. Mel Smith has served previously consecutive periods totalling 3½ years and 2 years as an Ombudsman and previously gave distinguished service in the public sector. He is clearly highly qualified to fill this temporary position in the Ombudsmen’s office.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
[Volume:636;Page:7016] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Brownlee raised some issues previously. I would like to indicate that if he wants to seek leave again to ask an urgent question—provided it does involve ministerial responsibility—I would now be in a position to reply on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting at the end of ordinary question time.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
[Volume:636;Page:7012] 
10.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What were the major topics of discussion at the 12th Central and Local Government Forum this morning? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 A raft of reports were discussed at the Central / Local Government Forum many of which addressed some of the key issues facing local government and New Zealand going forward. These include sustainability climate change infrastructure affordable housing and regional economic development. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports about the future of local government in New Zealand? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes I have seen a report that states that the member’s bill in the name of the latest leader of the National Party to reform local government in Auckland is actually part of a wider plan to effectively abolish local government in New Zealand and create a so-called local government tsar who would do little more than oversee the permit and approval process. Further not only did the self-proclaimed most famous man in Auckland barely manage to pull in 30 people at his local meeting at least one genuinely famous Auckland National Party stalwart threatened to withdraw whatever support he had for the National Party when he heard of Key’s extremist plans for local government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How is this in order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked for reports; the Minister gave reports. However the Minister is not responsible for National Party policy. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister advise the House on the progress of the independent inquiry into revenue-raising mechanisms available to local government and the sustainability of dependence on property rates for this purpose? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Following the confirmation of the terms of reference that were developed in consultation with parties that showed a genuine interest in this matter including the member’s own party an outstanding panel of New Zealanders was appointed. I have met with the panel and the review is now well under way. The panel is to report back by 31 July 2007. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware that after the 2001 elections the number of local body councillors who identified as tangata whenua was close to 6 percent which is considerably less than the demographic proportion of the population at 15 percent and what initiatives are being introduced to ensure that local bodies foster Maori capacity to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority as they are required to do under the Local Government Act 2002? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am aware of the statistic the member has given us and I believe that it is accurate. I point to one example which was the fine initiative in the member’s bill introduced into the House by my colleague Mita Ririnui.
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
[Volume:636;Page:7009] 
8. RON MARK (NZ First) 
 on behalf of  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What recent announcements have been made regarding an increase of funding to the Market Development Assistance scheme? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Prime Minister has made an announcement of a $33.75 million funding boost to mark the launch of Export Year 2007. The boost in funding means that New Zealand exporters will receive support to break into offshore markets. This Government knows that increasing our export capacity is at the heart of transforming our economy. That is why overall funding for the Market Development Assistance scheme has gone from nothing to $5.8 million in 2005-06 and to $33.75 million now. 
Ron Mark 
: What initiatives will be undertaken during Export Year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The list is very long and the Leader of the House will not let me say it all but as well as the $33.75 million increase there will be an expansion of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise’s Path to Market pilot programme which supports new exporters into Australia. A very successful conference of chief executive officers and founders of more than 50 of our largest exporters was held last Friday to brainstorm what the sector can do going forward. Resources will be made available for primary and secondary schools as well as for tertiary courses to help lift aspirations in this area. 
Ron Mark 
: What has been the public response to this New Zealand First initiative and specifically to the launch of Export Year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have received a number of positive responses relating in particular to the high popularity of the Market Development Assistance scheme and the Government’s response to the proposals of New Zealand First and Government Ministers. One of these positive responses came from the Employers and Manufacturers Association. The Market Development Assistance scheme was heavily oversubscribed. It has not been able to keep up with demand so it is pleasing to see a Government moving to put this right. There was however one wally in Christchurch who had a different view.
Burton Mark: Points of Order — Television New Zealand—Fiji Government Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Burton Mark: Points of Order — Television New Zealand—Fiji Government Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:636;Page:6996] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I apologise to the member. I am not aware of which particular questions they are but I have made a note of the numbers and I will check them out straight after question time.
Points of Order — Television New Zealand—Fiji Government Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Points of Order — Television New Zealand—Fiji Government Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:636;Page:6996] 
Points of Order 
Television New Zealand—Fiji Government 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The issue I raised is a serious one. A democratically elected Government in the Pacific has been overthrown and it would be completely inappropriate for Commodore Bainimarama to have been assisted in any way by New Zealand’s State-owned broadcaster. I wonder whether we might expect a ministerial statement on this matter later in the afternoon. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I emphasise again that there is no ministerial responsibility. If the member would like to seek leave to put immediately without debate a motion deploring Television New Zealand’s actions I would certainly have no objection to that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The matter that Mr Brownlee raised was not actually a point of order; it was more a point of debate. But we have had a response. We shall move on now. 
Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that answers to written questions Nos 18555 18556 and 18557 lodged to the Minister of Justice were due by 4 December and I still await them. Like most MPs I give a little latitude in these matters but I think it is also necessary for us to draw to your attention from time to time that the Standing Orders are being broken. I would like you to assist me by ensuring that the Standing Orders are upheld in that regard. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I apologise to the member. I am not aware of which particular questions they are but I have made a note of the numbers and I will check them out straight after question time.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Television New Zealand—Fiji Government Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Television New Zealand—Fiji Government Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:636;Page:6996] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I emphasise again that there is no ministerial responsibility. If the member would like to seek leave to put immediately without debate a motion deploring Television New Zealand’s actions I would certainly have no objection to that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The matter that Mr Brownlee raised was not actually a point of order; it was more a point of debate. But we have had a response. We shall move on now.