edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Collins Judith: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
Collins Judith: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9917] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 To assist the House I seek leave to table the abortion statistics for 2006 which were released just today by Statistics New Zealand. The statistics show that there has been an increase in the rate of abortions. 
Hon Member 
: What was the number? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member care to explain. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is the increase in the general abortion rate—it has gone from 19.7 per thousand to 20 per thousand of women aged 15 to 44 years. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Robertson H V Ross: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9915] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to advise the member that he needs to table his amendment in order for it to be voted on at the completion of the debate. This is in accordance with the leave granted prior to his speech for the honourable member Gordon Copeland. If the member could please table his amendment I would appreciate it.
Barnett Tim: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
Barnett Tim: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9910] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I understand that under the rules of this debate any amendment then becomes the sole focus of the debate unless we can move a resolution to deal with that so I seek leave for the debate from this point on to include both the main question and Gordon Copeland’s amendment and indeed any further amendments that members may see fit to move. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is indeed right. The question is that leave be agreed to. Is there any objection to leave being agreed to? There is none. It is agreed. The question is that the amendment be agreed to and the debate carries on.
Copeland Gordon: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9910] 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I will bring my motion to the Clerk immediately and I also have copies available for other members.
Robertson H V Ross: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9910] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I ask Mr Copeland whether he intends to table the amendment. It is necessary. If he tables it then I am happy to put the question that the motion be agreed to but I need the member to table the amendment.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9906] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9906] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a schedule of the 26 Work and Income service centres where there are no unemployed 18 and 19-year-olds. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9905] 
12.  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Communications 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that “My dream would be to see two trans-Tasman telecommunications markets offering one domestic rate of calling.”; if so what is he doing to bring this dream to reality? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
:  
I frequently agree with the Prime Minister. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Did the Prime Minister share that dream with him before announcing it in Australia; if so was he in it? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: One lives in hope and one is also careful what one hopes for. 
Dave Hereora 
: What steps has the Government taken to improve the delivery of communication services to the public? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Only a year after the telecommunications stocktake was released we have completely revised the Telecommunications Act. We have the Telecommunications Commissioner working hard to deliver on local loop unbundling unbundled bitstream and naked DSL on time and in full. The Telecommunications Carriers Forum has pulled together industry working-groups to implement local loop unbundling. We have a draft form of operational separation for Telecom New Zealand on the table. We have anti-spam legislation in place; and we have delivered on number portability with the Telecommunications Commissioner’s help. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Can the Minster inform the House as to whether a dream is higher in status than an aspiration lower than a vision equivalent to a wish but lacks the strength of commitment of a whim? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I understand that in the member’s case a dream is what he does when he is asleep of which there has been ample evidence over the last decade. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: On a scale of one to 10 can the Minster tell us what chance he believes he has of implementing the Prime Minster’s Martin Luther King - type “I have a dream” aspirations when the member for Waimakariri has been trying for some time through a petition to even get local calling across a paddock between Kaiapoi and Rangiora? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Some people see things the way they are and say why and occasionally Prime Ministers dream of things that are not yet and ask why not. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Which of the Prime Minister’s wishes does the Minister believe will come true first: the dream to see local calling between Dunedin and Dubbo and Wellington and Wagga Wagga; the vision to see us in the top half of the OECD; the aspiration to see us carbon neutral; or the simple old wish to have 20 hours of free early childhood education? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That one is an easy one. First place goes to the determination for us to be a four-consecutive-term Government.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9905] 
11.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What benefits are being seen as a result of the new joint New Zealand and Australian arrangements for a mutual recognition of aviation safety certification? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 On 30 March 2007 joint arrangements between the New Zealand and Australian Governments took effect that allow mutual recognition of airline safety certification between the two countries. The Civil Aviation Authority has since issued authorisation to a New Zealand airline Airwork Holdings Ltd to operate Boeing 737 freighter services within Australia. It is the first company on either side of the Tasman to receive authority under the mutual recognition regime. As a result Airwork did not need to obtain equivalent Australian certification thereby saving the company significant time and expense and obviously giving this New Zealand company a head start advantage in the market. 
Sue Moroney 
: What is the basis of the mutual recognition regime? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Although there are differences in individual standards the safety regime operates on the basis that the whole airline safety system of each country achieves equivalent safety outcomes. Thus the home airline safety certification can be recognised for operations within and between both countries.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9897] 
5.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on the number of young people receiving an unemployment benefit? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I can report that in December 1999 there were 17514 young people in the 18 and 19-year-old age group receiving an unemployment benefit. In March this year that figure was 1566 young people. It is with considerable pleasure that I am now able to tell the House that at the end of May that number was 1227. That is a massive 93 percent reduction since this Government took office. That success is mirrored by equally impressive results for Maori and Pacific young people. Maori 18 and 19-year-old unemployment numbers at the end of May were only 477—a 92 percent reduction since December 1999. Pacific 18 and 19-year-old unemployment numbers for the same period are now 125—a 91 percent reduction. Let me stress that of the 1227 young people receiving that support only 407 have been on an unemployment benefit for more than 13 weeks. 
Moana Mackey 
: What further information has he received about the distribution of this success across New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: As at the end of May 2007 there are 73 Work and Income service centres—that is more than half the Work and Income service centres in the country—where fewer than 10 unemployed 18 or 19-year-olds receive an unemployment benefit. There are also 26 Work and Income service centres in the country with no 18 and 19-year-olds receiving an unemployment benefit. I know that the member—and other members—will be particularly pleased to hear that the Gisborne Work and Income service centre has only seven 18 and 19-year-olds in receipt of that support. Ruatoria has a very creditable four and in Kaiti the total is zero. 
Judith Collins 
: Why is there such a discrepancy between the figures he has just quoted and the official numbers of the household labour force survey data which show that the number of 15 to 19-year-olds unemployed has actually increased by nearly 4000 from 24000 in 2002 to 27800 in 2007; and is it not misleading to quote only the unemployment benefit numbers when his own answers to written questions reveal that the number of 15 to 19-year-olds on benefits overall is 13000? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: There is not. One of the shortcomings of the household labour force survey is that it does not fully capture the range of activities of young people. The question and the answer were quite clearly about receipt of the unemployment benefit which is the most important—and indeed the most costly—measure for this economy.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9892] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member is quite correct in that the Government does have the right to transfer questions. But more important in this particular case although the Clerk’s Office may have accepted the question the Minister of Fisheries has no ministerial responsibility for the question that has been asked. It falls within the ministerial responsibility of the Minister of Conservation who is the Minister responsible for the marine coastal area. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I also note for the member that what the Clerk’s Office accepts in terms of the allocation of a Minister is always provisional but if there is no ministerial responsibility then as has been pointed out the question is transferred.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9892] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Although I recognise that the Government does have the right to transfer questions from one Minister to another I do want to note that my question accepted by the Clerk as correctly directed to the Minister of Fisheries has been transferred to an absent Minister. I am concerned that the use of the Government’s power to transfer a correctly directed question to an absent Minister may come uncomfortably close to an abuse of the process and of the Government’s power.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9889] 
1. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports of employer support for KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes—indeed many. Just today Coca-Cola has indicated it is moving immediately to match employee contributions at 4 percent for those of its 1100 workers who joined KiwiSaver. This is 4 years earlier than required. This follows Air New Zealand and the New Zealand stock exchange. I note that the New Zealand stock exchange chief executive officer Mark Weldon said that the cost of the employer contribution was “far outweighed by the value it brings to our talent recruitment and retention”. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What reports has the Minister seen of possible changes to KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a report that Budget 2007’s enhancements to KiwiSaver may be scrapped by a National Government. When TV3 recently asked National leader John Key whether he supported the enhanced KiwiSaver scheme he said: “I can’t give you a yes or no.” This of course would be quite consistent with moves like the cutting of New Zealand superannuation in 1998-99 by the outgoing National Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen the estimates by his own department Treasury that show that the increment to household savings arising from KiwiSaver will be less than the fiscal cost to the Government of the incentives it will apply to KiwiSaver and can he explain why the taxpayer would be spending more on incentives than the country gets in savings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Treasury provided a variety of estimates over a period of time. I think that the reaction to KiwiSaver once the announcements were actually made indicates we will see a significant rate of take-up and far less of the behaviour that Treasury was forecasting. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So Treasury got it wrong. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. 
Gordon Copeland 
: When does the Minister expect to have the detail of the mortgage diversion aspect of KiwiSaver in place so that information will be available to both employers and employees? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Regulations in relation to that have already been proceeding through so I will try to get information to the member about those details.
Peters Winston: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—High Commissioner for New Zealand  
Peters Winston: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—High Commissioner for New Zealand  
[Volume:639;Page:9889] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I want to thank parliamentary colleagues and spokespeople for their support of the Government’s actions. I agree with the sentiments of the speakers today and the Government is grateful for the action in unison that we believe is predicted by those words. I just want to say to Mr Dunne that we quite understand his point and we will not behave in a tit-for-tat manner in respect of the Fijian High Commission in Wellington. That is not our record or our style nor does it befit a leading First World democracy like New Zealand’s. We bear in mind that it is after all the relations between the people of Fiji and the people of New Zealand that are at stake here. We have to keep that in mind as we seek to restore the situation and as we deal sadly with a Government—or a regime—that was born out of the barrel of a gun.
Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—High Commissioner for New Zealand  
Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—High Commissioner for New Zealand  
[Volume:639;Page:9888] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future joins with other parties in expressing shock horror and condemnation at the decision of the Government of Fiji to declare our high commissioner Mr Green persona non grata—particularly after a period of time where it appeared as though there may have been the prospect of some progress towards the restoration of democratic rule in Fiji. 
Today’s developments come as a blunt and considerable surprise. New Zealand has very close ties with Fiji borne over a number of years of communication on a range of issues. It is important now that in considering our response we act in a way that is consistent with our long historical links between the two countries. The Fijian community in New Zealand would expect no less; nor I suspect would the New Zealand community in Fiji. 
I would hope that although New Zealand does take a strong and determined stance in relation to this decision today by Fiji’s interim Government we do not give credibility to the decision by indulging in a tit-for-tat reaction with regard to the Fiji High Commissioner in New Zealand. I think that the relationships between the two countries and our ongoing interests for a stable Pacific region are frankly too great for us to allow that to happen. 
So like others I support the actions of our Government to date. I urge a firm but cautious response in the time ahead and I am sure I speak for all members of Parliament in terms of our commitment to a restoration of a flourishing democracy in Fiji.
Locke Keith: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—High Commissioner for New Zealand  
Locke Keith: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—High Commissioner for New Zealand  
[Volume:639;Page:9888] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party endorses the Government’s strong response to the expulsion of our high commissioner and I think we should take it as a sign of desperation from the Bainimarama Government not a sign of strength. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated the Government is under pressure. It withdrew the emergency regulations and I think that we have to be careful not just to respond as a nation that has been slighted but to see the expulsion of our high commissioner as an attack on all of those countries that have been supporting the return to democracy in Fiji. We are just the country at the sharp end and we are taking the brunt in this instance. 
I think we have to work cooperatively with other nations in the Pacific Australia Europe etc. to put more pressure on the Bainimarama Government to return quickly to democracy and not to go down this path of greater confrontation. We have to think carefully about what extra measures we take and consider those in such a way that we do not introduce sanctions that will affect the ordinary people of Fiji. It is the ordinary people of Fiji the democratic forces in Fiji that are part of the solution—part of hastening the end of the Bainimarama regime. We need to work very effectively with all the democratic forces in Fiji today. Thank you.
McCully Murray: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—High Commissioner for New Zealand  
McCully Murray: Ministerial Statements — Fiji—High Commissioner for New Zealand  
[Volume:639;Page:9888] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 The National Party joins the Government in expressing alarm at the most recent developments in Fiji. The actions of the interim Government in directing the removal of the New Zealand high commissioner are serious and invite a strong and resolute response from this country. It is as the Minister has said unfortunate that these developments should occur at a time when there was at least a prospect of progress following the work of the joint working-group which indicated that the machinery could be put in place for fresh elections in Fiji as early as late 2008. The international community and the civic forum and the Commonwealth in particular have been seeking some sort of signal from Fiji that a way forward could be found. But over recent days we have seen events take a turn very much for the worse. 
From the outset of these difficulties in Fiji the National Party has supported the Government in warning the Fiji military about the consequences of any coup action and then supported the Government in imposing sanctions. It is not yet clear to us what immediate steps will be taken in relation to today’s developments—suffice to say that we will approach that matter in the same bipartisan manner that has been the case so far. 
The actions of the interim Fiji Prime Minister today are ill-judged and very much counter to the interests of his country. The great tragedy of recent developments in Fiji is that a great many people who already live in circumstances of great hardship will needlessly suffer even greater hardship as a consequence of the actions of their current leaders. 
It would not be productive for me to canvass in this Parliament or indeed even to offer commentary on the various steps currently open to the New Zealand Government—suffice to say that we expect and will fully support firm resolute action. Over recent months we have seen an overt challenge to the rule of law in Fiji. Today we see an overt challenge to the standards and norms of behaviour by which we do business with our Pacific neighbours. We very much regret these developments and we look to the Government to make a full and appropriate response.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:639;Page:9887] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill and the Social Security Amendment Bill. It is also the Government’s intention subject to further discussions with all parties to seek leave on Tuesday for the first reading of the Evidence Amendment Bill as related in a letter that I have sent to all parties today.
Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9906] 
Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:639;Page:9887] 
Thursday 14 June 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill and the Social Security Amendment Bill. It is also the Government’s intention subject to further discussions with all parties to seek leave on Tuesday for the first reading of the Evidence Amendment Bill as related in a letter that I have sent to all parties today.
Robertson H V Ross: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10366] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: When the bill was previously before the Committee Dr Richard Worth had the call. He has 1 minute remaining if he wishes to speak. If not honourable members it is time for me to leave the chair. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Standing Orders—Sessional 
Vote: Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:640;Page:10366] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Noes 111 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Motion agreed to.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
[Volume:640;Page:10357] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Just to get it correct I am seeking leave for the documents to be printed published and distributed to all who request them. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is the subject of the leave that is being sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I just want to apologise to the House for the interruption. I do thank my colleagues for seeing the wisdom of that procedure. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is all right. When I mentioned a way forward that is exactly what I was about to seek and we have found a way forward as you can see. Thank you.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
[Volume:640;Page:10357] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think the leave is simply for the documents to be published not printed because of the nature of the documents. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes leave has been—
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
[Volume:640;Page:10357] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I thank the member for his comments. This situation is extraordinary on two counts. The first thing is that I would have thought a courtesy was owed to the member of this Parliament who had tabled the document if such a ruling or finding were being pursued by the Clerk of the House. That is number one—a simple courtesy to that member would surely have been required in any sense of fair play. The second thing is that members here table document after document every darned day all of which are printed. But all of a sudden someone comes along with documents—in this case the subject of a commission of inquiry hearing—and they have some sort of legal sanctity against publication on the pretence that they do not carry any legal protection. Well that is with the greatest of respect to the Clerk David McGee absolute bunkum. Members will recall that I went through those arguments last time and I will not face 2½ weeks of not having an answer now. That is the least I could expect from my colleagues many of whom have already heard these arguments when legal efforts were last made by certain parties outside this Parliament to stop publication. I seek leave for the documents tabled yesterday in my name to be printed. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed and you are quite entitled to do that of course. I just mention that documents are tabled for the purpose of informing the House; they are not automatically published. But you have sought leave for that to happen. Is there any objection?
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
[Volume:640;Page:10356] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I agree that this is a very important matter. I refer whoever is looking into it to Speakers’ ruling 134/1 in order to see whether perhaps there is a way through it that would result in a further request for leave relating to publication. In essence the ruling states: “… the mere tabling of a document in the House does not mean that the House has ordered or authorised the publication of that document. Where the House does order or authorise the publication of a document the House makes the document its own and any subsequent publication of it is absolutely privileged … Where as in this case”—and I am not sure which case it was—“the document is merely tabled no legal protection in respect of any subsequent publication outside the House arises by virtue of that tabling.” It could be that there is quite a significant issue here for the member who wants to table the documents. It may be worth considering whether a leave application around their publication is a way through that.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
[Volume:640;Page:10356] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will make two points. The first is that as the House is not in Committee one cannot actually move to recall the Speaker because the Speaker is in the Chair. It is a different procedure from when we are in Committee and indeed I do not think Madam Speaker will be available later on today if I can put it in that way. Secondly I think the member has raised a very important matter that I think the Clerk’s Office needs to take a little time to think through before you respond Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder perhaps whether we could resume the debate on the motion with an understanding that you will come back to the House before it rises at 6 o’clock to give a considered response to the member. This is a very important matter and it is one that probably should not have an immediate response.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
[Volume:640;Page:10356] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification as to how soon you expect me to have an answer. If it will be the case that we will not have any chance to dispute this matter over the next 2 weeks of the adjournment then I think that is a grave travesty of the simple rules and protocols of this Parliament and indeed of Western democracy itself. I think therefore that this matter requires the urgent consideration of this House now.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
[Volume:640;Page:10355] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise with you at the first available opportunity something that has occurred overnight. It relates to documents that I had tabled here yesterday afternoon following the general debate in the House. I am reading from an article that states: “Mr Peters tabled legal submissions on the BNZ deal but these were not released to the Herald because they are considered legally sensitive by the Clerk of the House David McGee.” 
This is the second time I think in this Parliament’s history that an attempt has been made not to print documents that have been tabled in this House. We had all these arguments the last time you will recall when I tabled the wine-box documents in the House and the very same parties sought to preclude the printing of them by the Office of the Clerk and the release of them to the media for the very same reasons that they have no doubt put up now. 
 This is a deadly serious matter and I have raised it at the first opportunity. The public has been denied information that was submitted at a commission of inquiry so it gets worse in that context. I do not know what has gone on behind closed doors or who has made submissions to the Clerk’s Office but I would be astonished if those submissions were made on any basis other than that which was raised last time in respect of a much wider set of documents that at that time had not been published anywhere at all. The matters I put to Parliament yesterday were all matters that have been published in one form or another—and in the case of the newspaper article obviously published. But in the case of the submissions I point out that they were made before a commission of inquiry. 
This matter is so urgent Mr Deputy Speaker that I demand the Speaker of the House come back here so that the Clerk of the House through her can tell us what is going on. It is simply not something we can abide and I think it is a denial of public access to knowledge. I do not believe there is any constitutional meritorious or legal reason for this to have happened that was not traversed or overcome the last time such challenges were made. That may have been the first time in my memory that any parties outside this House having seen documents tabled sought to use the Clerk’s Office to stop wider publication beyond this House. It is an outrage that the commission could know what is in those submissions that those who are party to the submissions could know what is in them and that parliamentarians may know what is in them yet the public and the media cannot. I think that calls for the Speaker’s return to the House and I seek leave for that to happen now to tell us why on earth that decision has been made. I so move. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for raising that issue. You have correctly raised it at the first available opportunity. I shall seek a way forward for you not necessarily as you require but I shall seek a way forward.
Tanczos Nandor: Points of Order — Discharge of sessional order—Television coverage of the House 
Tanczos Nandor: Points of Order — Discharge of sessional order—Television coverage of the House 
[Volume:640;Page:10350] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the sessional order on television coverage of the House be discharged and that it be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration. 
Motion not agreed to.
Power Simon: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10349] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 First of all I say that as Chris Finlayson indicated National supports this bill through its third reading. I also have to say that the Green Party having indicated to the House it would not take its full 10 minutes in the third reading debate that was an impressive effort by Nandor Tanczos to get as close to the 10-minute mark as possible. 
I reiterate two important points that have been made during the course of the debate. The first is that National definitely sees this amendment bill as a clarification and as adding some certainty to the way in which this particular rule could be interpreted whether it be enshrined in statute or with the continuation of a common law position. The important point that has been made is that even if the common law retained the defence Parliament has an obligation to produce certainty in law and we certainly would not want to have a situation where this was tested at length in the courts. I thank members who have done the work on this amendment bill particularly as it was during such a rushed period in the select committee. 
Secondly I want to emphasise that National was happy to play a constructive role in seeing this legislation move through all stages of the House. It is not something that we would ordinarily agree to particularly because of the nature of the scrutiny that our democracy allows those parties not on the Treasury benches to pore over legislation that is put before the House. I think on the whole that robust process works pretty well. 
I know that the Attorney-General is anxious for me to conclude my remarks so I will just say that although the way this bill is passing is extraordinary with the introduction of the Evidence Act at the start of August it is essential. National supports the third reading of this bill. 
Bill read a third time.
Burton Mark: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Burton Mark: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10343] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Consistent with what I understand was the general discussion at the Business Committee to facilitate the progress of this bill I seek leave for the Committee stage be taken as a single wide-ranging debate and for there be one question at its conclusion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Power Simon: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10341] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I just take this opportunity briefly—and I emphasise the word “briefly”—to thank Chris Finlayson for putting in the time and effort on behalf of National during the select committee process for the Evidence Amendment Bill. He was very helpful to us when the Minister of Justice first wrote to National as a party on 14 June seeking its cooperation in expediting this legislation through the House and National members are grateful for the expertise he brings to issues like this. 
I also echo the comments made by the Green member Nandor Tanczos. Historically National has not been comfortable with legislation moving this speedily through the House. In fact arrangements as initially suggested were further discussed to result in the passage of the legislation that we are seeing today. Proper scrutiny of legislation is important to members on this side of the House. Although we can debate at length whether the Evidence Bill as it first emerged from the select committee needs the work done that the amendment bill proposes in terms of whether the common law would cover off the exceptions and the like in respect to admissibility of co-defendants’ evidence the point has been made by both Charles Chauvel and Chris Finlayson—and Nandor Tanczos to be fair—that at the very least Parliament has an obligation to clarify the law beyond doubt. I do not believe that the issue of whether an initial error was made is of significance at this point other than to say that we now know that the legislation will contain a degree of certainty that we hope will not see this particular legislation returned to the House for some time. 
It is the intention of the House to move to the Committee stage shortly and then to the third reading of this bill—all this afternoon. I just remind members that moving legislation through that process in the way that we are doing this afternoon is not at all—except in very exceptional circumstances—a satisfactory way to see legislation moved through Parliament. Certainly those who have responsibility for areas like justice or those who have shadow Attorney-General roles or the like will agree—as I am sure the Minister of Justice himself would—that such processes are not ideal. 
I believe that in order for this legislation to be as good a law as it possibly can be and to avoid court proceedings discussing whether the common law covers off some of the issues raised by this amendment bill getting the certainty around this legislation before its implementation is a helpful thing to do. National members will be constructive during the remaining stages of this bill’s passage through both the Committee of the whole House and its third reading. On this occasion I think I can say that the House has decided to put aside traditional matters of partisanship on issues in the justice—including criminal justice—area and will try to see this legislation move as speedily as possible.
Chauvel Charles: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10337] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call in the second reading debate of the Evidence Amendment Bill. I do not intend to speak for a long period of time. Much of what ought to be said relating to this technical tidying-up amendment has been said by the two previous speakers. 
As has been noted the bill will correct an accidental arguable omission from the Evidence Bill passed in November last year. Clearly there would potentially have been serious implications for a number of criminal trials involving multiple defendants if tidying-up legislation were not passed by Parliament in a timely fashion. 
As has been noted under the common law and under section 27 of the Evidence Act 2006 a defendant’s statement is admissible against the defendant but not admissible against a co-defendant in the same proceeding. There are three exceptions under the common law to the rule. These clearly ought to have been inserted into the Evidence Bill during the select committee process but that omission was not picked up. I must say that this is a rare omission on the part of a committee that otherwise works hard and thoroughly and normally addresses matters wholly and thoroughly. Those common law exceptions are where the co-defendant accepts the truth of the statement; things said and done in furtherance of a common design in a case where conspiracy is alleged; and things said and done in furtherance of a common design where the accused are alleged to have engaged in a joint criminal enterprise. The bill as has been noted will put these three exceptions into the Evidence Act 2006 putting it beyond doubt that it will reflect the common law. Obviously there will also need to be an amendment to section 5 of the Evidence Act to replace the word “Act” with “section” to reflect the fact that there is a split commencement date in the principal Act. 
I conclude by recording my appreciation for the multipartisan way in which this legislative tidying-up measure was able to be progressed and expedited and I commend the Evidence Amendment Bill to the House.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10334] 
12.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports of recent developments in child and adolescent oral health services? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have received many many reports. Child and adolescent oral health services are gearing up. They have already been reconfigured and upgraded in Southland and district health boards in other areas have finalised or are finalising their business cases with some district health boards—for example Canterbury District Health Board—making their business cases public. Hawke’s Bay District Health Board has done the same only on Monday this week. Various central investment decisions are likely to be made for new facilities including mobile services soon. There is more action in child and adolescent oral health now than there has been in this country in many decades. 
Dianne Yates 
: Why is all this activity and investment needed; and does it mean that we are responding to a known need? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is needed because the National Government shut down dental therapy training in New Zealand in the 1990s and it has taken until now to produce enough graduates to staff these new facilities that we are now building. And yes there is a known need amongst our children. The National Government’s neglect can be measured by our children’s oral health which is declining. This is a serious situation and an absolutely avoidable one; we must respond. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What funds if any have so far actually been distributed from the $40 million set aside in last year’s Budget for children’s oral health services given that it is now more than a year since the Budget announcement? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am afraid I do not have the precise figure at my fingertips but it would be quite a small amount. A number of investment decisions will however quite possibly be taken tomorrow.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10326] 
6.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Has he received a definition of “institutional racism” from the Human Rights Commission following the complaint from Ngati Uenuke-kopako regarding a decision of the Rotorua District Council; if so what was that definition? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Would the Minister agree with the 1986 Labour Government policy document  
Puao-te-ata-tu - Daybreak 
 which stated that the most insidious and destructive form of racism was institutional racism; if so what evidence can he see of changes having been made to Government institutions to remove that blight from our society? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I have not read the document recently but generally yes I agree that institutional racism is an insidious form of racism. Huge changes have been made in the intervening period since that document. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware—obviously not—that  
Puao-te-ata-tu - Daybreak 
 describes the differences between Maori and non-Maori across a range of indicators such as life expectancy and prison admissions as being a picture of “crisis proportions” and what response does he have to the fact that 20 years on the picture remains either unchanged or more dire? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: There are many social indicators and first among them perhaps—and certainly the one that drove me to stand for election to this House—was the blight of unemployment on many families. I can say to the member that that negative statistic has been radically driven down. Is there room for even further improvement? Yes and this Government is committed to that. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware that Ngati Uenuke-kopako is considering a request for a cultural audit of the Rotorua District Council in order to address institutional racism and would he consider the Human Rights Commission to be an appropriate entity to undertake this audit? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: In answer to the first part of the question I was not aware of that and in answer to the second part I say that it is entirely for the Human Rights Commission to consider any such approach made to it.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10319] 
2.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on business support for KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have seen reports from companies as diverse as Air New Zealand Gallagher Animal Management Systems and the New Zealand Exchange saying that they will adopt KiwiSaver because they want to do the best for their staff and for New Zealand. Indeed this morning I visited Pacific Steel where the management facilitated a visit and which is putting in 2 percent straight away from 1 July. I have also seen reports showing that record numbers of people are visiting the website and calling the 0800 KiwiSaver line. I am glad to see so much interest in the scheme. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What reports has he seen on attempts to discourage businesses from supporting KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a taxpayer-funded letter to businesses that is clearly designed to discourage them from supporting KiwiSaver. But it seems that in addressing this letter of Mr Key to Child Youth and Family and Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand Mr Key cannot tell the difference between businesses and Government agencies. We know that the National Party favours privatisation but this seems to be going a little bit too far. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Has the Minister seen the cumulative increase in the value of the Australian sharemarket which corresponds with Australia’s stock of superannuation funds over the years; and can he confirm that one of the advantages of having a large pool of savings in New Zealand would be the availability of onshore capital to allow Kiwi businesses to invest with New Zealand money? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed. That explains why I have had a lot of approaches from individual business people over the last few weeks who are very strongly supportive of the KiwiSaver scheme. The National Party in failing to sign up to support for the enhanced KiwiSaver scheme is simply out of step with where the major portion of New Zealand business is at the present time. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has he seen any other reports on support for KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. In Mr Key’s letter supposedly to business he claims that National supported KiwiSaver in its pre-Budget form. This is somewhat surprising given that National is the only party in Parliament to vote against the third reading of the KiwiSaver Bill. I also note that the letter claims that after taking into account the benefits of the company tax rate companies could be worse off in the first year of the scheme and there is a 1 percent employer contribution despite the $20 a week tax credit. That does not add up. The employer contribution is fully paid on the first $104000 of employee income in the first year which is 2? times the full-time average wage.