edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hide Rodney: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Hide Rodney: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7489] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am very happy to accept the Labour Party whip’s word. I just want to know what the word is. Is the Labour Party whip saying that Taito Phillip Field is on public business or is he saying that Taito Phillip Field has told him he is on public business? What word is it that we are actually accepting here? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member Mr Field has indicated he wishes his vote to be exercised in this way by the Government whip. It has been exercised. Mr Field knows what the rules are. His word is taken as is the Government whip’s word.
Key John: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Key John: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7489] 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I notice that the Labour Party has just exercised a proxy vote for Taito Phillip Field. You will recall that this afternoon in Parliament there was quite an extended debate about the definition of “public business” so I assume that under Standing Order 156(4)(d) the Labour Party will be claiming that the vote is being exercised on the basis that Mr Field is on public business. I wonder whether that would be an opportunity for you to reflect whether Mr Field is in fact on public business. We know that yesterday he was interviewed by the police. This is a wonderful opportunity for you Madam Speaker to give us an indication as to whether you think that is the case. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I did rule on this as the member indicated earlier. The whips’ word has to be accepted concerning the casting of a proxy vote and it is.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7477] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Further to question of the day No. 2 I now have the information. I seek leave to table the estimates of the carbon footprints of the Government departments concerned. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7475] 
11.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What reports if any has he received on plans to build new thermal generation plants? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The first report is of course the one that was in the 
 Press 
 in the last couple of days that Meridian Energy is now disavowing and is saying is incorrect. The second report was in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 on 11 February when Mighty River Power said that in light of the Government’s energy and climate change policies it is unlikely to go ahead with the Marsden B coal-fired plant. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has the Minister received any other reports on approaches to building new thermal generation plants? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In contrast with this Government’s consistent opposition to new coal-fired plants I have received a report that another party welcomed the Marsden B facility at its inception. That party said it “welcomes the new coal-fired Marsden B …” and said: “the development of this generation is exactly what New Zealand needs”. That party’s thermal energy spokesperson went so far as to say: “The Government must ensure that it doesn’t let the RMA sink this desperately needed piece of generation.” The party that was promoting coal generation was of course the National Party. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can the Minister argue that requiring State generators to abandon coal and progressively get out of other forms of thermal generation will in fact give a price advantage to privately owned generators when he goes around the country saying that renewable sources are the cheapest form of generation—is it that for the private sector coal is cheap or is it that for the Government it is expensive—and how does that give consumers any confidence given that the Government is such a big player in generation and ultimately sets the price that households pay? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That is not what I said. I said it is important that the policy settings are right to dissuade the building of coal-fired generators be they for the private sector or for the State-owned sector. It is clear that the Government’s climate change policy is having the effect of dissuading anyone from building new coal-fired power stations.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7473] 
9.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in the information he receives from his department? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Corrections) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Corrections 
: Yes. 
Ron Mark 
: When the Minister stated on 19 February on Radio New Zealand: “The thing that concerns me is that people assume this is right across the prison system. It is not. This is one unit perhaps in Rimutaka.” had the Department of Corrections informed him that in November 2006 a Canterbury prison officer reported to prison managers that corrupt officers were smuggling in P and up to 28 cellphones per month and names of officers were provided and has that management which is the same management who were responsible for overseeing and running the “goon squad” briefed him on that incident? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: The member raises a number of issues on which I am sure the Minister of Corrections has responded to him directly. There are a couple of matters that are currently subject to investigation and I am sure the member appreciates that. 
Ron Mark 
: How can he have confidence in the information provided by the Department of Corrections when honest prison officers who take enormous risks reporting allegations of smuggling and corruption to prison managers are firstly ignored secondly put at risk when the fact that they have passed on that information is deliberately leaked back to the inmates and the officers involved and thirdly suspended and investigated for alleged misdemeanours? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: All allegations and accusations are treated very seriously within the department. I am not familiar with the particular issue the member refers to but I would be more than happy to follow that up and come back to him with an answer. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister see that as long as the department is run by people such as those who led the “goon squad” who regionally oversaw and approved of its corrupt and illegal activities and who at head office level failed to bring that region and its squad to account seeking instead to justify their decisions not to fire anyone he will never be able to have confidence in the quality of information provided to him by his department? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Corruption within the service is not accepted or tolerated.
Hartley Ann: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hartley Ann: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7471] 
7.  
ANN HARTLEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Has he received any reports on the response to the Government’s expanded rates rebate scheme? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Yes indeed I have. I can advise the House that as of yesterday’s date local authorities have received $41276000 of rates rebates from this Government for the rate-paying Kiwi households around New Zealand. This compares with just $696389 paid out in rebates for the whole of the 2005-06 financial year which was for just 4200 households. This represents a sixtyfold increase in Government funding so far this year. 
Ann Hartley 
: How the does the average rates rebate granted to date compare with the average rebate for the previous financial year? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He just said that! He just answered it. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Dr Smith clearly was not paying attention but I am happy to inform him that as a result of the maximum allowable rebate increasing from $200 to $500 the average rebate to date this financial year is $448 compared with just $165 for the 2005-06 financial year.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7467] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I seek leave for this question to be held over until the Minister of Corrections appears in the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7466] 
3.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Deputy Prime Minister 
: What reports if any has he received on proposals to change the legislative framework relating to the foreshore and seabed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I have received a number of reports relating to a proposal to repeal the existing framework and re-vest the foreshore and seabed in the Crown effectively holding that subject to subsequent legal claims. This proposal is in the bill being promoted by the Maori Party. 
Shane Jones 
: What reports has he seen on support for this proposal? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is a very good question as Mr Power said. I have seen a report suggesting that the bill needs to be considered by a select committee a report claiming that this was never said and finally a report saying that the bill will not be supported at all. All three reports are attributed to the leader of the National Party Mr John Key. 
Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker tena tatou katoa. What does the Minister have to say about the statement from Jock Brookfield Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Auckland that the legislative framework relating to the foreshore and seabed was a gross overreaction to the June 2003 Court of Appeal decision which “held that Maori customary communal title in areas of sea land (of foreshore and seabed) could exist at common law.” and that “customary title is a species of legal property and should not be taken by Parliament without full compensation determined by an independent authority.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I thought the article by Professor Brookfield was very interesting but I think it was unfair in one key and important respect: any group has the right to go to the High Court which has the inherent jurisdiction in customary law matters in any case for a declaration that but for the passage of the Act territorial customary rights existed—that is in language he uses customary title. If that declaration is made by the High Court the Crown must enter into negotiations with the claimants for redress and any agreed redress must be taken back to the court for confirmation. Alternatively of course the Crown can enter into direct negotiations with groups that it believes have such territorial customary rights and then proceed back to the court for the registration of an agreement. That is happening with Ngati Porou Whanau-a-Apanui and Ngati Porou ki Hauraki and excellent progress is being made in those discussions. I think the member may be surprised at what comes out of those discussions. I think New Zealand as a whole will be pleased to see the kind of balance that in fact the Foreshore and Seabed Act is capable of producing.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7460] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If it is a new point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Does that not mean that you should at least have some idea of what Mr Field is doing from one part of a parliamentary day to another in order that the whips who hold his proxy do not undergo a challenge as to whether the proxy is valid? That may tie Parliament up for an enormous amount of time. What is at risk here is the smooth and confident running of this place—and all because Labour wishes to keep the vote of someone whom it has just flung out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I have nothing further to add to the rulings I have made.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7460] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The difficulty is that you are not seeing any middle ground here. The reality is that Standing Order 156(1) to (3) makes it clear that there is a role for whips in the organisation of Parliament’s business. That authority given to whips comes not only from the fact that members sign up to a political party but also from the fact that the Speaker chooses to accept the honour of whips. Anyone who has been in that position knows the responsibilities that come with it. But this particular part was inserted because of Labour’s outrage over the actions of Alamein Kopu and perhaps some others. So we now ask this question Madam Speaker: are you saying that an Independent member simply notifies you and that that therefore absolves you of any requirement under Standing Order 156(4)(d). Is that what you are saying? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please finish his point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It raises the question as to what happens when the validity of the proxy is questioned in the House because if it happened on— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I understand your point— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well I have not finished my point. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You have made the point at great length and I appreciate it. The point is that the word of all members is accepted in this House and that is the procedure I will be following in the future if no one produces any evidence because there is nothing under the Standing Orders for that sort of inquiry or process to take place. And if it did as I said I accept the member’s point about the whips but I also accept that these rules are based on the assumption that just as one accepts the word of the whips one accepts the word of all honourable members.
Key John: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Key John: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7459] 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just to go back to my earlier point first the question we had for you is that if we cannot understand the definition of public business—and I put it to you that Taito Phillip Field may not be able to understand the definition of public business—then Taito Phillip Field himself will not know if he is in the dock whether he is in fact on public business. That is a very serious point—if he cannot understand whether he is on public business then he does not know whether his vote can be cast on behalf of the Labour Party. 
Secondly in the event that he is not deemed to be on public business because he is in the dock and you do not deem that to be public business then the question is what the sanction against Mr Field is in the event that his proxy vote is cast by the Labour Party. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the Standing Orders stand it is for the member to determine what is public business and what is not. If I were to give a ruling then it would have to apply to all members. [ 
Interruption 
] No I am sorry—unless the Standing Orders Committee came up with a different ruling in which case it then is for the Speaker to interpret the ruling. Public business is of course a very wide term. Members themselves know that and that is why it is for them to interpret it and to convey that to the member who is holding the proxy. As I indicated in response to Mr Dunne’s comment I am happy to talk to Mr Field about a process and procedure. But if I am to give a ruling on exactly what a definition is to be then we are down the road where everybody has to comply with that and there will have to be some ability to test it if it is challenged by any other member.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7459] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is until the Speaker wishes to withdraw it which would be when I received an indication that the member no longer wishes that practice to take place.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7459] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to clarify—and I accept all the points that have been made—whether the authorisation provided to the honourable Taito Phillip Field is valid through to the next election. Does the authorisation have a time period or is it valid through to the next election?
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7459] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members. The member is correct that the rationale behind that provision is that the person is an Independent and there has to be a process. But the rationale is that the whips do in fact undertake that task. So if a different change in procedure is what is requested for an Independent member then to be fair for that to apply the whips should be able to verify what is happening to other members as well. I ask members just to reflect on that and if they do wish that then I suggest they raise it at the Standing Orders Committee. 
The last comment I will make is that it is for the member to be the primary judge as to whether he or she is on public business and as the Standing Orders read that is communicated to whoever holds the proxy. That is the state of the Standing Orders at this stage.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7459] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think the member is trying to draw too long a bow by making essentially Standing Order 156(4) and the rest apply only to Independents or to a party comprising one member. Standing Order 156(4) was put into the Standing Orders in 1999 effectively by the Standing Orders Committee as a codification of the understood rules around the granting of leave within political parties. But where of course there is one person then nobody else can grant that leave other than the Speaker himself or herself. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to draw the conclusion from the origins of Standing Order 156(4) that it is understood that it applies in practice to all members of the House. 
It is absolutely equally true that it is applied in such a way that it is broadly interpreted and importantly—as you said Madam Speaker—is not inquired into by other members of the House. That would be an endless process every time as has been rightly pointed out for weeks recently. Mr Hide was absent merely for appearances in a television programme. The fact that he dropped the young woman did not turn the situation into a case of illness.
Key John: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Key John: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7458] 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether I could just take you back to Standing Order 156(4)(a) to (d) which is the part of the Standing Order that relates to Independent members. We are not talking about the situation where Mr Hide’s party or another political party may have two or three members; we are talking about the situation where a proxy vote is being cast for an Independent member. 
I put it to you Madam Speaker that it is quite clear under Standing Order 156(4) that there are a number reasons why a legitimate proxy vote can be cast and they are: “if the member concerned is—(a) present within the parliamentary precincts or” etc. etc. but under paragraph (d)(i) and (ii) the member may fall within two other particular reasons which are an illness of a personal nature or to attend to other public business. I say to you Madam Speaker that if the Labour Party in casting that proxy vote cannot understand whether Mr Field is on public business—if he is for instance being investigated by the police being absent as he is today or is in a situation where he may well be in the dock—then legislation cannot possibly be progressed. That situation may well occur in a second reading debate before we can progress any further in other debates. So it is simply not possible for Parliament to progress legislation when the Government relies on a one-seat majority casting the vote of an Independent member who is going to claim to be away under the definition of public business when that public business is something that could legitimately be challenged by the Opposition.
Brown Peter: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Brown Peter: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7458] 
PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am seeking just a little bit of clarification. Would it be fair to say that the rules surrounding proxy votes are fairly flexible? Have there not been cases of members dancing with the stars and dropping young women all over the floor yet still voting by proxy? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I am not sure that is a point of order.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7458] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As I indicated to you before Dr Cullen’s second contribution to the point of order I wish to bring to your attention the fact that Rodney Hide interjected on Dr Cullen’s first point of order after Rodney Hide had complained and you had indicated people were on their last warning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes and I also noted that Gerry Brownlee did the same. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes he did! But the members were having a debate and discussion on this matter. We will start afresh.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7457] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Dr Cullen confuses the issue somewhat. When our vote is cast it is cast under Standing Order 156(3) which I am sure Dr Michael Cullen is fully familiar with. He is using that to obscure the nature of what is at issue here with Standing Order 156(4). 
I go to the point that it is a very very narrow set of reasons allowing the honourable Taito Phillip Field’s vote to be cast. It is not the situation of a party’s MP being away which is not so narrow and which is set out specifically. The clear implication is that if these criteria are not met the vote cannot be cast. The problem I have is that if we imagine the vote going to the Labour Party we have Labour’s whip interacting with Mr Field to get him to explain that yes he still meets these criteria. The difficulty I have with that is that the Prime Minister herself says that this man is immoral and unethical—and indeed he is facing dishonesty charges. So he cannot be trusted in the Prime Minister’s view. I do not see how the Labour Party whip can exercise this vote because Labour cannot guarantee that the criteria are being met. Those of us who might be opposing the particular legislation at issue believing that the Labour Party does not have the numbers have no way of assessing whether Taito Phillip Field can vote because we do not know the criteria. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. He is starting to be a little repetitious. If I could just address some of the issues members have raised. The first point I note is that no member has actual knowledge of the business of any other member when he or she is not in this Chamber. I would make that point and ask members to reflect upon it. 
I also note Mr Dunne’s point and although he did that voluntarily the other members did not. I am very happy of course to take up the matter with Mr Field but I make the point that there is nothing in the Standing Orders that insists on that process or that the Speaker be responsible for it. I also note that if members are suggesting that the Speaker should inquire into the reason why any member is absent—and it would have to apply to any member to operate fairly—then I think members should reflect on that. I am happy to consider it but it would be a ruling on all members. My feeling at this stage is that such a ruling would have to be supported by a change in the Standing Orders. It may well be a matter that members wish to go to the Standing Orders Committee—that every member in this House verifies either through their whips or to me that he or she is on parliamentary or public business when not in this Chamber or is ill. Certainly that has not been the position in the past.
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7457] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Madam Speaker as someone who has been in the position that is being referred to I want to pick up one or two of the comments that the Deputy Prime Minister has made and to suggest a way through based on previous experience. When leave is issued by whips it is issued effectively on the authority of the Speaker. When leave is applied for to whips normally some documentation accompanies the application—in other words a member wants to be absent for a particular purpose. Between 2000 and 2002 when I was the sole member for my party the arrangement that I had with the previous Speaker was because technically he was the whip who would grant me leave that I would put retrospectively an application to him indicating the purpose for which I was absent on a particular day. 
Madam Speaker I suggest that in this particular case that may be an appropriate practice to follow so that if there is any question the member is required to have at least provided some documentation to you justifying the purpose for which he was absent; otherwise we could have a situation where effectively nothing much is changed. So I do think there is a way through it based on previous experience. I think Madam Speaker that it would be appropriate for you to say to the member that you need some written documentation to cover the periods for which he is absent.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7457] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Madam Speaker that point is an irrelevancy. Perhaps Mr Key will remind himself that a proxy vote was cast on behalf of Alamein Kopu for the National Party on a very large number of occasions and that only a year or so back proxy votes were cast—normally in line with the National Party’s position on the issues in front of the House—on behalf of Donna Awatere Huata who was actually facing criminal charges and was subsequently convicted of them. The point he raises unfortunately may make for a bit of a smile in the media but it is irrelevant to the Standing Orders and their interpretation.
Key John: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Key John: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7457] 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Madam Speaker I think it would be useful if you could define for the House exactly how you will interpret public business. If we are to believe media reports we know that the Labour Party will be casting the proxy vote of Taito Phillip Field—a person whom the Prime Minister described as immoral and unethical for his behaviour. It will be interesting to see whether you rule that somebody who was interviewed yesterday by the police and who could be in the dock facing significant charges falls within your ruling of being on public business. If you do not make that clear I cannot see how the Labour members who will be casting their votes will understand it. The Prime Minister if we are to believe her thinks the actions of Mr Field have been unethical and immoral and I cannot believe if she believes that that she will be casting his vote.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7456] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 This is an interesting matter but is one of course that does not apply to just Independent members; it applies to all members of the House. The criteria are not just for Independent members but apply to the exercise of a proxy vote on behalf of a party member including of course that member who was absent all week from the House. He was absent on as we know business of a personal nature all that week not public business. 
 The second point to make is that public business has a very wide interpretation—it is not parliamentary business; it is public business. It is Standing Orders 156(4)(b) and 155(4)(c) that refer to parliamentary business. It is Standing Order 156(4)(d)(ii) that relates to public business. In the case of members who are not independent members their proxy votes are cast on their behalf by their whips or a person acting on behalf of the whip on the basis of leave granted by the whip—although strictly speaking that is with the permission of the Speaker because it is understood that permission of the Speaker is operated by delegation to the party whips in that case. There is a very longstanding understanding in this House that members do not ask whether that has been properly exercised by the whips. I invite the member Rodney Hide to think very carefully about what would happen if every time a proxy vote was cast on behalf of somebody we had an examination of the precise reasons why that person was absent. I see Mr Power who has been a senior whip understanding perfectly well how unattractive that proposition would be in actual practice. It is a matter in the end between the member on whose behalf the vote is being cast and the Speaker. It is a matter for the member to notify if in fact he or she is not absent on that business.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7456] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is of crucial importance because we know and believe that legislation will be before this House where the casting of this vote could make the difference between the legislation passing or not proceeding. It seems to me that we do have a problem. I can understand perfectly with the Hon Peter Dunne the honourable Tariana Turia and the Hon Jim Anderton because all three were actually on parliamentary business. But we know that Taito Phillip Field is not on parliamentary business. I also understand that he is not ill. You are telling this House that if he does not fit those categories his vote cannot be exercised if he is not here. Now the difficulty that we have is that in Parliament a piece of legislation could be hanging on that vote the vote gets cast but we are not certain whether in fact the criteria for Taito Phillip Field have been met because we do not know the reason you have granted it. I think you have to be particularly specific and send a very strong message to this particular member that if he does not fit the category that you have set which I guess has to be family cause of a personal nature or illness his vote cannot be cast unless he is here.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7455] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I think the first point to note is that I have not granted the Labour Party anything but I have in fact exercised the jurisdiction I have under the Standing Orders in terms of proxy. But I understand the point the member raises and for the interests of the House I shall give a ruling on the matter. 
As members are aware party voting was introduced in 1996. It was soon appreciated that special arrangements needed to be made for parties consisting of one member and for Independent members of Parliament. Effectively these had to be exempted from the general requirement to have a member present in the Chamber. From 1996 to 1999 there were in fact no requirements on Independent members at all. They could have proxy votes recorded for them regardless of where they were. In 1999 the present rule set out in Standing Order 156(4) was introduced. A proxy for an Independent member can be exercised only if the member is within the precincts absent on select committee business absent on other business approved by the Business Committee or absent with the permission of the Speaker. In the case of the latter the Speaker’s permission may be granted for illness or other family cause of a personal nature or to enable the member to attend any other public business whether in New Zealand or overseas. 
Since that provision was introduced three members have been given general approvals by the Speaker to have their votes cast by proxy in their absence: the Hon Peter Dunne in 2000 Tariana Turia in 2004 and the Hon Jim Anderton in 2005. I have given an approval to Taito Phillip Field in exactly the same terms as those approvals. Once the member has been given the approval it is for the member to judge whether the condition applies entitling him or her to have a proxy vote regarded. If for example there is no family illness and the member is not attending to other public business whether in New Zealand or overseas the member should notify the person who holds the proxy that it is not to be exercised while that state of affairs continues. But no member has to account to the Speaker for how he or she uses their time away from this House.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
[Volume:637;Page:7455] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Through the media I understand that you have granted using Standing Order 156(4) permission for the Labour Government to cast Taito Phillip Field’s vote while he is not within the precincts of Parliament. If that is correct I am interested in the reasons why that would be the case because to the best of my knowledge Taito Phillip Field is not on parliamentary business—I know he does a lot of business but it is not of a parliamentary nature— 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes he goes with us. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well the member can interrupt if she likes but I would like to know— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is speaking to a point of order. If there are any further interruptions those members will leave the Chamber. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I would just like an explanation Madam Speaker.
Wilson Margaret: List Member Vacancy 
Wilson Margaret: List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:637;Page:7455] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Lesley Frances Soper has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Georgina Beyer.
Event: Members Sworn 
Event: Members Sworn 
[Volume:637;Page:7455] 
Members Sworn 
Madam Speaker 
 administered the Oath of Allegiance to Lesley Frances Soper who then took her seat in the House.
Wilson Margaret: Resignations — Georgina Beyer Labour 
Wilson Margaret: Resignations — Georgina Beyer Labour 
[Volume:637;Page:7455] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Georgina Beyer resigning her seat in the House with effect on 16 February 2007.
Members Sworn 
Members Sworn 
[Volume:637;Page:7455] 
Members Sworn 
Madam Speaker 
 administered the Oath of Allegiance to Lesley Frances Soper who then took her seat in the House.
List Member Vacancy 
List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:637;Page:7455] 
List Member Vacancy 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Lesley Frances Soper has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Georgina Beyer.
Resignations — Georgina Beyer Labour 
Resignations — Georgina Beyer Labour 
[Volume:637;Page:7455] 
Tuesday 20 February 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2.35 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Resignations 
Georgina Beyer Labour 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Georgina Beyer resigning her seat in the House with effect on 16 February 2007.
Fairbrother Russell: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7819] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I too speak in relation to clause 10 of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill which deals with the need to register the names of both parents at birth. I take a slightly different angle from that of my friend who just spoke for the Maori Party Dr Sharples. I accept entirely what he said but my experience as a lawyer is dealing with adopted children and the parents of adopted children. Although the stress for a parent to adopt out a child is unremitting and never able to be fully eased the distress for a child who has been adopted is perhaps even more painful. 
I can remember making a journey on behalf of a client to a town a way from Napier with a client who had accessed her Department of Social Welfare file and ascertained as well as anyone could from that the name and the address of the mother. With this client we approached the mother. The physical characteristics were the same. We confronted this woman and my client said that she thought she was her daughter. The woman—and all characteristics indicated she was the mother but she had been in denial since the birth—said that she had never had any children. The impact on the adult child seeking to identify who her genealogical forebears were when the woman—who all objective evidence pointed to as the mother—stood in front of her and said that she had never had a child was totally devastating. So I accept that clause 10 of this bill which makes the parents of a child primarily responsible for registering the birth is very important. 
I take up the point made by Dr Sharples about what is unwarranted distress and I ask him just to read that against the provisions of subsection (2) of new section 9. The whole of clause 10—particularly new section 9—sets a very high standard. So any Family Court on appeal when considering what is undue distress would take a very high threshold to be satisfied there was unwarranted distress. We are not talking about embarrassment; we are not talking about inconvenience. We are talking about the absolute top element of distress having to be established. 
Debate interrupted.
Blumsky Mark: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Blumsky Mark: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7815] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 In the interest of facilitating business through the House I will save most of my comments—if the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill does go forward tonight—for the second reading Committee stage and so on. Before I start I want to— 
Hon Member 
: Is this going to be the highlight of your career in Parliament? 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: Absolutely this is where I am going to make a difference. The previous member who just spoke Darien Fenton mentioned the length of marriage. I take the opportunity to congratulate the member on the length of her marriage and also to congratulate her husband on his courage bravery and the sacrifice that he has made. 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member referred to courage and that is not acceptable in this House as I understand it. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The usage was not in the manner that we have banned in this House. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: The word was used in admiration for her husband Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I know. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: National is opposing this legislation for a number of reasons which I will very quickly allude to. There is some good in this bill. I think the fact that the name of the bill has been changed and the word “relationships” has been brought in is a plus. The fact that 6000 births are not registered is an issue that needs to be addressed. Mind you feedback today indicated that an education process needs to be undertaken for Polynesians and maybe that will get thrashed out in the select committee process. 
Issues that have created concern for me just reading through the bill are issues with business compliance costs. It states quite clearly in the explanatory note that business compliance costs will be involved. There is neither scope nor feel for what those will be but it is yet another cost that will be put on private sector organisations that want to be involved. 
Secondly another of the issues I have is that when one looks at the consultation undertaken one sees that the notes make it very clearly known that there has been a lot of consultation with “Government agencies”. But the line that worried me the most was “Public consultation has not been undertaken.” So there has been no discussion about this bill none at all with anyone other than Government agencies. 
I took an opportunity this afternoon to talk to the New Zealand Society of Genealogists and asked whether it had any issues before the bill before the House. I can assure members now that that the society has issues—issues that it has put on a note to me—which need to be brought to the fore and which will certainly tidy up this bill. I will take the opportunity in the further processes of the bill if it passes this first reading to bring up those issues that the society has raised. Thank you for the opportunity.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7799] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Bill read a third time.
Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7796] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to Standing Order 106 “Misrepresentation” which states: (1) A member who has spoken to a question may speak again to explain some material part of the member’s speech which has been misquoted misunderstood or misrepresented in the same debate.” I seek to explain that the honourable member who has just resumed his seat referred to me as a “safe pair of hands” and that I would not be here next time because I do not offer the excitement— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I am sorry— 
PETER BROWN 
: I just point out that his leader got 40-odd percent. He is not here and I still am. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. The member knows very well that it is a point of debate.
Collins Judith: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7792] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I refer you to Speakers’ ruling 16/5 regarding eating in the Chamber. The Minister on duty in the House tonight for the Government has been eating in the Chamber. She had a full biscuit going there and ate all the way through the speech from the Maori Party. I ask you Madam Assistant Speaker to ask the Minister to refrain from doing that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I did not see the Minister but if she was doing that she knows there is a rule about it.
Bradford Sue: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Bradford Sue: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7783] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I will take just a short call this afternoon to confirm that the Green Party welcomes the return of this bill to the House for its third reading and that we continue to offer our support to this and all other Government efforts to work towards a fair and sustainable accident compensation system for this country. There is still much that needs to be done but every constructive step along the way helps. 
The most important part of the bill we are dealing with today is the merger of the accident compensation employers’ account with the self-employed work account. The Green Party believes it is only sensible and equitable that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of their business structure when their injury risks are the same. These kinds of historical inequities arose from the National Party’s unfortunate privatisation project in the late 1990s and it is just a pity that we have had to wait 7 years to see this particular discrepancy put right. 
I would now like to take a couple of moments to explain briefly why the Green Party did not support Pansy Wong’s amendment yesterday in relation to the merger of the accounts. The issues that the National member was trying to address are covered already in clause 8 through a new section that permits the Government to make regulations to cover a transitional period until the 2009 tax year. That change allows the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to deal with the problems that Ms Wong rightfully raised and the Government has indicated that $100 million will be set aside for that purpose. This money will in effect act as a rebate for employers but will be assessed with reference to their business activity risk and to maintaining the stability of levies. Pansy Wong wanted to leave this new clause intact but also to rebate in with no defined mechanism in 2007-08 an additional 20 percent across the board to employers. The cost of this would have been a further $100 million. 
Essentially she was recommending an arbitrary one-off gift of $100 million to be made by ACC to employers making it a final total extra cost to the corporation of $200 million given that she was seeking to leave the Government’s proposed transitional mechanism intact. The Green Party therefore voted against the National Party amendment as we believe that although we acknowledge that historical anomalies exist it is better to start with a clean slate by simply merging the two accounts as encapsulated in the bill. 
Merging the employers’ account and the self-employed work account into a single account will be a big help in equalising and lowering the cost burden for the self-employed who will also still have the option of taking out the CoverPlus Extra insurance if they want to. The Green Party welcomes the third reading of this bill and looks forward to further improvements to our accident compensation system—perhaps of a more substantial nature next time round.
Vote: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Vote: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7780] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2007. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to.