edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Korea Republic—Delegation from the National Assembly 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Korea Republic—Delegation from the National Assembly 
[Volume:647;Page:16049] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a delegation from the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea led by Representative Park Geun-hye is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish to welcome the delegation.
Visitors — Korea Republic—Delegation from the National Assembly 
Visitors — Korea Republic—Delegation from the National Assembly 
[Volume:647;Page:16049] 
Tuesday 20 May 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Korea Republic—Delegation from the National Assembly 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a delegation from the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea led by Representative Park Geun-hye is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish to welcome the delegation.
King Colin: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17174] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Clause 3 is titled “Principal Act amended” and it is appropriate that it is. The Corrections Act 2004 is not in isolation any longer because it is our intention to include babies being accommodated in prisons while their mothers are incarcerated as long as certain conditions are met. On that basis there is not such a facility within the principal Act at the moment and it is therefore quite appropriate that that be done. It is also quite relevant that this Act be amended because it keeps us in line with a lot of other Western countries. 
I pick up on a point that Judith Collins made which was very very appropriate I thought and that was the humanisation of the Corrections Act. I think that is something we need to keep foremost in our minds as we look at that principal Act as amended because as it stood there was no provision or ability to go forward and do all the things we are talking about which needed to be done around making this bill the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill a reality. We do not actually have those facilities available. We do not have the trained staff available. Therefore it makes that much more sense that the principal Act is amended so we can look forward to this provision becoming a reality so that babies can get the best possible opportunity and so that we continue to grow as a caring and loving society. 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Stewart Barbara: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17172] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take only a very short call. It is very rare to see a bill come into the House with this type of date requirement in it. It is rare for a commencement clause to state: “on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” rather than mention a specific date. We know why this is happening. It is because the facilities are not built. But we have to be aware that these facilities do have to be set up and they have to be managed extremely well. These facilities basically have to meet the criteria and the standards required of any other institution that currently cares for children. 
The prisons will need resources such as qualified and trained staff for when mothers are attending programmes and we know that staff resources are usually fairly rare in this particular area. The prisons will need rooms that meet the size requirements. We have to ensure that babies are kept separate from toddlers as they are in other institutions. We also have to provide some indoor and some outdoor play areas and of course there will be many other areas that have not been mentioned. These facilities will need to be added to the existing prisons and we want to see them set up and managed extremely well. This is an area that cannot afford to fail through inadequate resources and we were pleased to hear the reassurance from the Minister that those resources will be available. New Zealand First will be very keen to follow this debate through the Committee stage. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bennett Paula: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bennett Paula: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17173] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 Clause 3 of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill says that it amends the Corrections Act 2004. I experienced one of the many firsts that happen in the House when I got to speak on the same side of a debate as Sue Bradford the member in charge of the bill. I actually got to sit on the same couch as her and speak in favour of this amendment to the Act and say what it would mean for mothers and their babies. I have not spent even 3 years in the House but I have had a series of new experiences and surprises—and I hope that my future years here will see more—and one of those has been to sit with Sue and the Greens and to see the merits of this amendment to the Act and what it would mean. 
At the end of the day I saw that the bill was a good thing for babies. I took a little bit of grief from a few people who were surprised that National was actually in favour of and supporting something Sue Bradford had proposed. But I can say that we on this side of the Chamber saw it as being quite an easy thing to do. We very much saw this legislation as being not about punishing the mothers—the prison system does that in its own way—but about doing what was best for babies. 
Every piece of evidence we saw supported this amendment to the Corrections Act. It was not a hard decision to make to stand up and recognise that this legislation was about something bigger than those women being imprisoned; it was about their babies getting the best possible start. That was our feeling about it and why we are supporting it. Thank you.
Collins Judith: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17173] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Clause 3 states that this Act amends the Corrections Act 2004. Clearly this clause is important; otherwise the bill would become an Act that would exist outside of the corrections system and that would not be of any use at all. I was pleased to hear the Minister Phil Goff deal with the issue I raised as to when this amendment to the Corrections Act would actually come into force. I was very pleased that he took the opportunity to let us know that we and the submitters were not simply wasting our time in relation to legislation that might never come into force. It is certainly a situation where I think the Corrections Act itself has had a great deal of work done on it and it is an area that is incredibly important. 
This bill is yet another step forward for the Department of Corrections in terms of the humanisation of some of the situations people find themselves in—certainly in relation to the Corrections Act which deals primarily obviously with offenders and those who are imprisoned. I think it is important to realise that although—as Mrs Chadwick said—this bill is primarily about the welfare of babies it is somewhat foolish to think that it is about only the welfare of babies. The Corrections Act itself acknowledges that this has to be not just about the welfare of babies but also about the longer-term benefit to them as children. When their mothers are incarcerated and dealt with under the Corrections Act 2004 and now its amendments their situations will be changed because they have had a better situation with their mums. Also their mothers will be changed because of the bonding and the love they have received from their children. That is really all I want to say on this particular clause.
Goff Phil: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goff Phil: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17172] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 In response to the question raised by the sponsor of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill Sue Bradford given that agreement has been amicably reached on the amendment to the bill that deals with the problems of affordability of the provisions and about making final decisions when the impact of the new sentencing regime—hopefully keeping more women with children out of prison—is known I do not see a problem in bringing this bill into effect quite early on in the piece. I do not personally have responsibility for that so I cannot commit the Government but I think that given we have reached agreement on support for the Supplementary Order Paper in my name there are no particular reasons that I can see that would delay bringing this bill into effect other than the obvious efforts of the Opposition tonight to delay getting the bill through its Committee stage.
King Colin: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17172] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The commencement date has been well covered and canvassed from the aspect of having adequate facilities funded and resourced so that they can meet the needs of mothers and their babies regardless of what security status the mothers may have. There is one other thing that needs to be seriously considered which is that it is quite appropriate that the commencement clause states: “This Act comes into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” from the point of view of the special needs and training that Department of Corrections officers will require in order to care for these babies and their mothers. 
We have to remember that all too often this House sees things in high-dimensional terms and when it comes down to providing a service sometimes our plans go awry. So from that point of view it is very appropriate that the commencement date be built around the level of ability to provide to a very high standard the training facilities needed by the staff who will be caring for these babies and their mothers while they are under the control of the Department of Corrections. I must commend the Law and Order Committee for obviously taking on board the submissions that would have pointed out that situation. The change the committee made was quite appropriate. 
I think it will be quite a challenge to attract train and retain those specialist people. It will be very important as that process goes forward—not only as we build the facilities to look after the babies and their mothers adequately but also as we make sure we have the best-practice model of how that should be conducted. Again there is a little bit of time as we see in clause 2 which states: “on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” I think that is very appropriate and I congratulate those people who made submissions. The select committee took them on board and we look forward to having a well-trained staff to provide that care.
Collins Judith: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17170] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I will now deal with the commencement part of the bill. When this bill went to the Law and Order Committee the commencement clause stated that the Act would come into force 90 days after the day on which it receives the Royal assent. I realise now on reading the bill that has come back to the House that the legislation might never come into force. There is no reason at all for us to presume that the commencement date will ever actually happen—certainly not on what we have heard so far. I say that because the commencement date in the bill presented back to the House has been amended and is now “on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” Why has this happened? 
I can see from the report back to the House that there is concern that new facilities need to be constructed and that they obviously have not been constructed yet from what I can see in the report back to the House. There is a recommendation to the Government from the select committee that the work to make the necessary improvements should be made as soon as possible. I am not sure whether those facilities have in fact been built and I would be very interested to hear from the Government or even from the proposer of the bill whether they have been built. I see that a lot of people are shaking their heads that no they have not yet been built. So the commencement date to the bill is completely in the future. We are not working to a particular date and we have no particular reason to believe that the facilities will be in place because the legislation is not actually in force. 
That is something we should be concerned about—that we could be leading people down the garden path into thinking that there will be this provision and that we will have these facilities when the facilities have yet to be built. Certainly it does not seem to me on the face of it that there is any provision whatsoever that this needs to take place by any particular time. I would be very interested to hear from others on this matter.
Bradford Sue: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17171] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I am grateful to the member Judith Collins for raising the point about the commencement date. I would like to seek some assurance from the Minister the Hon Phil Goff—because this is a member’s bill and it is a slightly different situation from normal—about those parts of the bill where there are provisions that do not require the building of new facilities. I know there will be debate about this under clause 5 when we deal with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. Substantial parts of this bill relate to what happens with mothers with babies in prison now without any necessary reference to the building of new facilities. I would hate to see as the member Judith Collins said the rest of the bill delayed indefinitely. I seek some assurance from the Minister that that will not happen.
Blue Jackie: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17171] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I concur with my colleague Judith Collins regarding the commencement date. As reported back to the House there is an amendment to clause 2 that the actual date be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council because there has to be the infrastructure in place so that mothers with babies under the age of 24 months can be catered for. There are three women’s prisons in New Zealand and the current situation is that mothers can keep their babies up to the age of 6 months but that has been a rare occurrence simply because we do not have the infrastructure for that as it stands let alone for babies up to 24 months. I think that is an indictment on our current prison system. 
There are also a lot of strings attached to this deal for mothers to be able to keep their babies for 24 months. They have to have access to facilities for counselling and for treatment. They have to undergo drug testing and participate in parenting education programmes. It is quite a big deal and those facilities might not already be in place at the current time. Time is needed; the provision has to be planned for carefully. There is nothing worse than bringing something in when we are not ready for it—it will all just fall to pieces. That is not good for morale. It is not good for anybody—certainly not for a mother with a baby up to the age of 24 months. I think it was appropriate that the select committee took that into consideration and made the amendment that the date should be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. That is the way forward. Hopefully the commencement date will not be extended by a very very long time. Hopefully it will be done in a matter of months. But it is certainly the right thing to do to make sure that the right infrastructure is in place so that when mothers in prison can keep their babies up to the age of 24 months everything is set up and is there to be successful and to work.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17170] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17169] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 I want to take a call and I am disappointed that we cannot take a call on the content of the bill because although the title is self-descriptive its contents are the fundamental drivers of why we are having this debate tonight. We are trivialising it actually by sitting here and talking about mothers and babies or mothers with babies—whether it is an apt title. The content of the bill is what matters in this debate. The Opposition’s refusal of Mr Goff’s request to take the debate as a whole has actually trivialised the debate tonight but that does not surprise me. I also heard Opposition members talk about mothers and babies so they even got the title wrong; it is mothers with babies. 
But I think the sad thing here is that we have had to look at a bill in total and entitle it. The issue that concerns us on this side of the Chamber is that this bill is trying to encourage the bonds of attachment by making the child central to the bill not the mother and that the child’s best interests are at heart. When we are looking at offending at repeat recidivist offending and at incarcerating mothers in prison we are forgetting the outcomes of people who have lost their way in life. We have not supported strong attachment and bonding at birth—that absolutely critical stage—so there is no moral compass as those children grow up. 
I think this is a fantastic bill and it is interesting that Sue has had great success in getting her bills pulled out of the ballot. The title is apt for the bill. I look forward to better debate on the bill’s content the reason why we need it and of course why we support it.
King Colin: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17170] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The title of the bill is appropriate. When we see that the title is Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill we can appreciate that we are talking about a change here; it is definitely an amendment bill. No doubt those people who are employed within the Department of Corrections will have to undertake training and make changes in their approach when this bill is introduced into law. No doubt there would have been an initial concern. This bill with its title Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill will add a cost but when we look at it from that point of view we will see too that there is tremendous opportunity to ensure that the best possible outcome is achieved. 
It is of significance that New Zealand should be one of the last of the OECD countries to have an ability to accommodate mothers with babies inside our corrections system. There is a lot of history and a lot of material around this legislation. The people who will be administering the Act will see that the intent of Parliament has to be to disregard the cost of what needs to be built to make adequate provisions regardless of the security risk of perhaps the mother so that the corrections system can carry out this activity in the appropriate way. On that level I certainly support the title and I look forward to the bill becoming law as the debate progresses. I think that the title Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill is very appropriate.
Simich Clem: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17170] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I just make the comment that I do not see how the debate can be taken too much further because there is nothing new coming from contributors. I am willing to take another call but I have no intention of seeing this Chamber being made fun of as it were.
Turner Judy: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17169] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a call on this clause because I agree with the previous speaker that the title of this bill actually says it all. If we break it down the bill seeks to define a mother who is entitled to apply to have her child under 24 months of age with her in prison. I do not plan to take any future calls during the Committee stage so I will take my opportunity to speak now. 
I am pleased that the Law and Order Committee sought to check and adjust the definition of who can consider herself to be a mother and apply to have her child with her. Obviously the concept of a baby is well clarified as to the length of time of the accommodation and at what age it would cease. I think the interesting word in the title is “with” because the rest of the bill determines under what conditions an application can be made for a child to be with its mother and also what might happen during this 24-month period in terms of parent education and a whole lot of other areas that can be covered during the time that a child is with its mother. United Future is very happy to support clause 1.
Hide Rodney: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17169] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party rises too to support the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. In fact it is surprising that it has not been a requirement before now. I think that is the only thing that amazes me because the concern clearly is with the best interests of the child. The idea that when we incarcerate a mother we think that we are somehow adding to either her punishment or her rehabilitation by keeping her apart from her baby and her baby apart from her has to be muddle-headed. Surely the concern should be with the child and how can any child be best cared for by being apart from his or her mum? 
The bill allows the opportunity for the authorities to consider what is in the best interests of the child so the issue of the facilities in the prison and indeed the issue of whether the mother is a suitable mother—irrespective of the fact that she is in prison—will be taken into account. I think personally it is astonishing that that has not been the case all these years. 
Might I just add that I find it a bit disappointing following Mr Goff’s suggestion and the bill’s support that we are not debating the entire bill because it is members’ day and that is an opportunity—particularly for the Opposition—to make a point. I thought it was very generous of Mr Goff to make the offer. I have to say that I am very disappointed with the National Party whip who denied members on this side of the Committee the opportunity to debate the members’ bills and indeed to test the will of Parliament on their respective bills.
Bennett Paula: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bennett Paula: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17168] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I would like to talk about the title of this Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I suggest that the title is in many respects possibly the best title for the bill. It deals with the corrections system it deals with mothers with babies who have been incarcerated and it is an amendment obviously to the Corrections Act. 
The title indicates that the bill is about those mothers and their babies under 24 months and what it means for those babies to be with their mothers at that most critical time. It says to people that this bill is about more than women who have done wrong being jailed; it is about more than the punishment that society—certainly our courts—has deemed they need to receive; it actually talks about the babies. I think that that is what is most important about the title of this bill. It talks about our babies and it says that the bill is about our young ones under 24 months. At the end of the day I think this bill makes it pretty clear that it is about what is best for the children and certainly what is best for babies under 24 months old. 
The Law and Order Committee could have looked at other titles for the bill and there are a number of options that it could have looked at but I think it has chosen a title that describes the bill quite well. The title talks about mothers and it talks about their babies. Those babies are to be with their mothers while they are under 24 months. I wanted to stand up and take a quick call in support of the title of this bill.
Stewart Barbara: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17169] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I am delighted to take a short call on the title of this bill the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. We in New Zealand First believe that the title is most appropriate and we believe basically that it says it all. It is relatively short and it is very specific. It is very easy to identify what the bill is about—the title tells one exactly: mothers with babies who are caught up in the justice system. So we believe that the title is very appropriate. 
We identify babies as being those young young children under 24 months and we believe to have babies with their mothers in prison is a win-win situation. We know too that most mothers actually want to be with their babies and to be in the justice system and away from one’s baby could be very traumatic. We believe the bill is in the best interests of children and we will be looking forward to following it through the Committee stage.
Blue Jackie: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17168] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on the title of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill and I congratulate Sue Bradford on bringing this bill to the House. It is a compassionate bill. The title says it all basically. The bill is all about mothers and babies and it is all about doing our best for mothers and babies. It is not about punishing the babies; it is about supporting the mothers and doing our best for the babies by letting them stay with their mothers. It is about bonding it is about any type of feeding—not just breastfeeding which is obviously the preferred way of feeding—and it is about continuity of care. 
Members will be interested to know that under the current law—until Sue’s bill does pass—mothers can have their children with them in prison until they are 6 months of age but that has not been feasible because we do not have the infrastructure. 
I think the title of the bill—Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill—is very appropriate. 
Hon Member 
: It’s a good title. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: Absolutely. Under the bill babies can be with their mothers up to 24 months of age. No mother wants to have her children taken away but at 24 months one can have staged management of the removal of a baby that is still with the mother if the mother is still incarcerated. It is really in the best interests of the children that they are with their mothers. They should not be punished for the mothers’ crimes. It is all about reducing recidivism and intergenerational crime. 
This is a fantastic bill. It has the support of National members. The title—Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill—is very apt and we certainly support it.
Simich Clem: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17167] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I call the next speaker I bring to the attention of members that we are debating this bill clause by clause. I am sure that members were very pleased to hear the contribution of the last speaker but the debate is narrow. We are debating clause 1 “Title”. We are not to go outside that at all. The next clauses to be debated are clause 2 “Commencement” clause 3 “Principal Act amended” clause 4 “Purpose” and so on. That is the way it is unless someone would like to seek leave to do otherwise. Someone may do that. I am not suggesting that members should do that but it is possible for any member to seek leave that we have an overall debate then have separate questions on the clauses. That may be acceptable to the Committee.
Goff Phil: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goff Phil: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17168] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 That is a remarkably good suggestion. My understanding and I think the understanding of the earlier speaker was that we would debate all the clauses together. That would be quite sensible. There is a strong degree of unanimity about this bill and it would make sense to do so. I seek the leave of the Committee that we debate all the clauses together. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection. Members will confine themselves strictly to the clause under discussion. We are debating clause 1.
Vote: Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17166] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
Anderton (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Jones S (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Ardern (P) 
Dean 
Key (P) 
Shanks (P) 
Auchinvole 
Dunne (P) 
King A (P) 
Sharples 
Barker 
Duynhoven 
King C 
Simich 
Barnett 
Dyson (P) 
Laban (P) 
Sio 
Bennett D (P) 
English (P) 
Locke 
Smith L (P) 
Bennett P 
Fenton (P) 
Mackey (P) 
Smith N (P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Soper (P) 
Blue (P) 
Finlayson 
Mahuta (P) 
Stewart (P) 
Blumsky (P) 
Fitzsimons 
Mallard (P) 
Street (P) 
Borrows 
Foss 
Mapp (P) 
Swain (P) 
Bradford 
Gallagher 
Mark 
te Heuheu (P) 
Brown (P) 
Goff (P) 
McCully (P) 
Tisch 
Brownlee (P) 
Goodhew (P) 
Moroney (P) 
Tizard 
Burton (P) 
Gosche (P) 
Norman 
Tolley (P) 
Carter C 
Goudie (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Tremain 
Carter D 
Groser (P) 
Okeroa (P) 
Turner 
Carter J (P) 
Guy 
Paraone (P) 
Wagner (P) 
Chadwick 
Hawkins 
Parker (P) 
Wall (P) 
Chauvel (P) 
Hayes (P) 
Peachey 
Wilkinson (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Heatley (P) 
Peters (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Clark (P) 
Henare (P) 
Pettis (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Clarkson (P) 
Hereora (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Wong 
Coleman (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Power (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Collins 
Hodgson (P) 
Rich (P) 
Worth (P) 
Connell (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hughes 
Robertson (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hutchison (P) 
Roy E 
Teller: 
Cunliffe (P) 
Jones D 
Ryall 
Fairbrother 
Noes 2 
Roy H (P) 
Teller: 
Hide 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.
Sio Su'a William: Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17164] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to add my support along with other members of this House to this Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill. I congratulate this House on being able to bring this bill forward at this time. I have noticed that when we have problems in our communities we have a tendency to be very quick to point the finger around at our police at our Government departments and also at Government Ministers. But I would say that the most significant contribution to many of our present problems came when our liquor laws were loosened to benefit the liquor industry by allowing alcohol to be sold from stores on suburban streets where schools and neighbourhoods exist and in fact normalising in the psyche of many of our young people the freedom and accessibility of liquor. That has been a social disaster for communities like Manukau City Mangere and other similar suburbs which are reaping the severe and tragic consequences. 
Today in Manukau City the number of liquor outlets has fluctuated between 300 and 500 across the city. Some retailers are unscrupulous and sell alcohol to kids as young as 12 and 13 years old. Some nightclubs continue to flout these laws by serving children under the age of 18 and by serving those who are already intoxicated—and yes there have been uncontrollable brawls afterwards. Yet the process for getting their licence suspended or revoked is so frustratingly taxing on people’s time and energy. The community where I come from in Manukau City has sought to control and limit the number of liquor outlets for quite some time. Two options have been presented to the community through the Manukau City Council. The first is to change the district plan. Our experience there has been that it is a costly time-consuming process which opens it up for debate with the liquor industry. The second option of course is what this House is now embarking on. 
I will support this bill but I also want to say that I think we really need not only to entitle the community to have a greater say in where these liquor outlets are located but to go beyond that. There is a strong link between the violence that is experienced in some communities and alcohol. There is a strong link between domestic violence and alcohol. Quite a bit of research has already been done on that. I do not think anybody really wants prohibition; I think the horse has certainly bolted. But it is about looking at being responsible with regard to where alcohol is available in our communities. Some outlets and some businesses are responsible but some are not. Those are the people we have to be concerned about in our community. 
I simply want to support this bill acknowledge the member who has brought it forward George Hawkins and acknowledge all of those who support it. I look forward to some robust discussion in select committee with regard to this bill. Thank you for the opportunity.
Turei Metiria: Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turei Metiria: Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17158] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to take just a short call on this Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill. I congratulate George Hawkins on bringing it to the House and on achieving the level of consensus on it that he has. The Greens—and I in particular—have been quite critical of some of the alcohol-related bills that Mr Hawkins has brought to the House but I think that this one certainly meets all the criteria of the Green Party policy. 
We are particularly concerned about eliminating the advertising of alcohol on television and in broadcasting that is aimed at young people. We are particularly concerned about reducing the proliferation of liquor stores that arose out of the 1999 amendment Act and we are concerned of course about increasing community decision-making which is what Mr Hawkins’ bill does. Communities have a right to decide how these issues are managed in their own communities and that was missing from the earlier legislation. We have paid a very severe price for that and in fact it is not really those of us here in this Chamber who have paid that price but the community itself. Young people and vulnerable families have paid that price. 
We would also like to see a great deal more community decision-making in other areas where social ills come out of recreational activities. Gambling is a classic and obvious next example and we would very much like to see more community decision-making in that area as well. 
Otherwise I just reiterate that the Green Party will be supporting this bill in full. All our MPs support it and we are very pleased that it is progressing quickly through the House. Thank you.
Tremain Chris: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Tremain Chris: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17153] 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: We will not go into too much detail on that. The National Party supports the bill but I want to make a point about the A and P society and how difficult it is for them. Even in Hawke’s Bay the society is having to rejuvenate itself as an organisation. It has had a fall off in numbers and has had to reinvent itself over the last few years. We are starting to see a rise in the numbers of people coming to the A and P shows but the organisation is having to look outside the square to promote itself and provide something that is of attraction to the wider public. So it will be interesting to see whether it can do that in Feilding and replicate what is happening with the Fieldays there. 
Essentially this is a non-controversial bill; it is of the flavour of Manawatu and Hawke’s Bay rugby whereby everyone is supportive of the wider game and we will certainly support the bill tonight. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.
Guy Nathan: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Guy Nathan: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17152] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 It is worthwhile making a contribution on this bill that involves Palmerston North people Manawatu people Rangitikei people Horowhenua people and even Wanganui people because many of us will have very much an emotive tie with all of our regional shows that go on under the name of agricultural pastoral and industrial or just A and P. In fact when I was a lot younger I was able to show some of my animals at this particular showground in Palmerston North. I did not actually do very well but I have a strong emotive tie to this area in Palmerston North because as a youngster I used to go to watch the stock cars there and then as a student for 4 years I played a lot of rugby there. I do not think I actually scored a try on the main ground but I played for the varsity “A” rugby team a lot out the back in the mud and I played a little bit of representative rugby on the main ground. 
The important point I want to make in my contribution this evening is that I feel Palmerston North will be the loser with this Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill. The reason I say that is that I am always mindful of the connection between urban and rural people. I know the show will continue at Feilding and I know that is fundamentally a very good thing but in the past it has been very easy and accessible for city dwellers to go along when the A and P show was on and understand exactly what goes on at the farm-gate level. They could walk around and see the pet animals and indeed in the past we have had very good bull weeks when prize bulls have been shown in that particular area. 
The National Party supports this bill allowing this organisation to move to Manfeild in Feilding. It makes sense in a way because on a Friday it is very much the rural hub for that area with the very well-known Feilding sale yards. I think it is good that it is going there but I urge a little caution and say that we need to be mindful of the fact that we have at times a disconnection between urban and rural New Zealand. The ground at Palmerston North will always be there and the stadium will be there. The stock cars will evolve and all the sports facilities will go on there because this bill enables the ground to be passed over to and be run by the Palmerston North City Council. I know all of those activities will continue but fundamentally the rural aspect that has been the hub of this organisation will move to Feilding. National supports this bill but I think we will have to do some ongoing work in this House to ensure that we have strong connections between our rural folk and our city dwellers.
Tremain Chris: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Tremain Chris: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17153] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill particularly because I have been a neighbour of this fine province of Manawatu coming from Hawke’s Bay. I have lots of recollections as a boy of games of rugby between Hawke’s Bay and the Manawatu—the green and whites—and of jumping in dad’s old Holden and driving from Hawke’s Bay through the gorge and over to the showgrounds for some mighty games of rugby. I remember that in the old days they used to hang magpies from the letterboxes as we came through on the other side of the gorge and went through Aokautere and some of the outlying towns as we came in. So there are many memories there. 
My family has a close connection with the ground. Obviously my father Kel played many games of provincial rugby there and there is now a tournament held between the Manawatu and Hawke’s Bay teams for a memorial trophy named for my father who passed away in 1992. More than that my wife’s family—Jeanette and Trevor Jurgens—are from that area and they have an association with the stock cars there with a son-in-law who is involved with those. I myself was at Massey University and I wanted to touch on that because like Nathan and a number of members of this House I played a lot of rugby out on the back ground there. I also have some pretty bad memories of some of the under-cover areas that Mr Maharey talked about—with the Massey University toga parties and things of that ilk— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Ah!
Stewart Barbara: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17151] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I am very pleased to support the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill. This is a very straightforward bill that provides for the transfer of the management and control of the land that comprises the Palmerston North Showgrounds from the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control to the Palmerston North City Council. 
I have listened to other members in this House talking about their association with the Palmerston North Showgrounds and I must add mine. I have been there on a number of occasions. I have sat and watched rugby games in the park and shivered in the cold wintry winds. But I must admit too that there have been some sunny days that were very pleasant. I have also watched the stock cars there so it is a venue that has a large number of events. We are very pleased to see that this very popular part of the city has at last received the recognition it deserves. We in New Zealand First are very happy to support this particular bill.
Borrows Chester: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Borrows Chester: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17152] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is a privilege to stand and support this bill and to listen to the Hon Steve Maharey wax lyrical about Palmerston North. My favourite Palmerston North story is about the Americans who went into the information bureau and said: “Say does it get hot over here? It’s just all those fans up on the hill.” A great story; I do not know whether it is an urban myth. 
The Palmerston North Showgrounds is a place that is not really all that close to my heart unlike for instance the Suter Art Gallery in Nelson where my father is a member and exhibits on a regular basis—maybe I should have made myself available to speak there. My son did have a flat about 100 yards from the showgrounds and when I was a police cadet I played a number of student teachers at a certain rugby tournament at the showgrounds. Mr Mallard may well have been there at the time; I do not recall. I did play in the same team as Mr Mallard at Karamea in the South Island in a game of netball I think in about 1976 or 1977—he was wearing a red nightie I think—during a certain teachers’ trip to the West Coast with some old friends. I think Paul Swain might have been there actually. Those were the good old days. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think the memory is failing. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: We will have to have a talk about that maybe later on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I drank a jug with a kaftan on but I never played netball in the 1990s. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Could we please go back to Palmerston North? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Righto—back to Palmerston North. Well I think Palmerston North is a fine place to go. I was there on Saturday visiting Barry and Collette in their new first home. It is a great little place to buy houses raise kids belong to the army and do the psychiatric work that Collette does. I would encourage John Cleese to go back to Palmerston North and I dare him to make similar disparaging comments about the fair city that some of us hold dear to our hearts. If you live in a little place like Hawera—jewel that it is—Palmerston North has a lot to behold. There is a lot to do in the odd visit to the big smoke such as the odd Hurricanes game. 
It is good to see this legislation come before the House and for me it is good practice at speaking because in the next months I hope to put forward legislation that will vest land from the Patea Sports and Agricultural Society—the 10 acres it bought in Kakaramea in 1853—into the Kakaramea hall committee. It is amazing what one learns in this House and what one gets to speak about. It is always a privilege.