edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Speaker’s Statements — Parliamentary Labour Party Membership—Taito Phillip Field 
Speaker’s Statements — Parliamentary Labour Party Membership—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:637;Page:7319] 
Wednesday 14 February 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Parliamentary Labour Party Membership—Taito Phillip Field 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members I have received the following letter: 
Hon Margaret Wilson 
Speaker 
Parliament House 
14 February 2007 
Notification of Change in Parliamentary Party Membership under Standing Order 35(1)(c) 
Dear Madam Speaker 
In accordance with Standing Order 35(1)(c) I wish to inform you of a change in the parliamentary membership of the New Zealand Labour Party. 
Following a decision of the Labour Party caucus today Taito Phillip Field is no longer a member of the parliamentary Labour Party. This decision is effective immediately. 
Yours sincerely 
Rt Hon Helen Clark MP 
Leader New Zealand Labour Party
Carter Chris: Points of Order — Electioneering—Public Funds 
Carter Chris: Points of Order — Electioneering—Public Funds 
[Volume:637;Page:7421] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to clarify an answer that I gave to a point of order earlier. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We don’t know what it’s about. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Fair enough. Would the member please indicate what he is seeking leave about. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It was my response to the point of order that you ruled inappropriate from Mr Brownlee earlier about the Chinese function held at Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to clarify that matter. Is there any objection? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You gave a ruling— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to seek leave. If members do not agree they can at that point decline. But whether or not I ruled it out of order every member in this House is entitled to seek leave for a matter. It is then for every member to decide whether that leave should be given. That is what is happening here. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It should not be an option for the Government to use the parliamentary process to explain its bad behaviour in an environment where— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. That is not a point of order as the member well knows. Leave is being sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Points of Order — Electioneering—Public Funds 
Points of Order — Electioneering—Public Funds 
[Volume:637;Page:7421] 
Points of Order 
Electioneering—Public Funds 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to clarify an answer that I gave to a point of order earlier. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We don’t know what it’s about. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Fair enough. Would the member please indicate what he is seeking leave about. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It was my response to the point of order that you ruled inappropriate from Mr Brownlee earlier about the Chinese function held at Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to clarify that matter. Is there any objection? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You gave a ruling— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to seek leave. If members do not agree they can at that point decline. But whether or not I ruled it out of order every member in this House is entitled to seek leave for a matter. It is then for every member to decide whether that leave should be given. That is what is happening here. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It should not be an option for the Government to use the parliamentary process to explain its bad behaviour in an environment where— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. That is not a point of order as the member well knows. Leave is being sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7413] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 When this question was put in this morning it was addressed to the Minister for Social Development and Employment. It was subsequently shifted by the Government and I seek leave of the House to amend one word in my question so that I am addressing the Associate Minister by the correct gender. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7412] 
6.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports if any has he received on the Government’s progress at reducing the number of New Zealanders in long-term unemployment? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am advised that the number of working-age people who have been receiving the unemployment benefit for more than 1 year has fallen by 80 percent since the Labour-led Government took office. National left a legacy of more than 70000 long-term unemployed in 1999. By December 2006 this Government had reduced that number by more than 56000 to around 14000. Responsible economic stewardship coupled with policies that support people into work and services that support the needs of employers and job seekers have created a climate where we can ensure that people have real work for real wages. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Has the Minister received any specific information about whether Burnside—the scene of a recent speech by the Leader of the Opposition—could fit Mr Key’s description of being one of the “places where rungs on the ladder of opportunity have been broken.”? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have received advice that suggests that situations such as that described by the Leader of the Opposition did exist in the Burnside area. There were in fact a total of 3458 people receiving the unemployment benefit from the Riccarton and Papanui service centres but that was in 1999 the last time this country was unfortunate enough to be under the mismanagement of those members. The number receiving the unemployment benefit today in that area is not 3458 but 403. This Government’s policies have restored the ladder of opportunity for more than 3000 people which that party had taken away and would remove again if this country were ever unfortunate enough to see it in Government.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — State Luncheon—Distribution of Party Political Material 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — State Luncheon—Distribution of Party Political Material 
[Volume:637;Page:7404] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is a State luncheon being held next week. Parliament has just decided that the function will go on for a period of time so that means the ringing of the bell will be at a later time. Can you tell us whether it would be OK for political parties to distribute party political material at that State luncheon? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee. That is not a point of order.
Points of Order — State Luncheon—Distribution of Party Political Material 
Points of Order — State Luncheon—Distribution of Party Political Material 
[Volume:637;Page:7404] 
Points of Order 
State Luncheon—Distribution of Party Political Material 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is a State luncheon being held next week. Parliament has just decided that the function will go on for a period of time so that means the ringing of the bell will be at a later time. Can you tell us whether it would be OK for political parties to distribute party political material at that State luncheon? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee. That is not a point of order.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Tabling of Documents — Green Party Electoral Spending 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Tabling of Documents — Green Party Electoral Spending 
[Volume:637;Page:7404] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document. It is a photocopy of a cheque made out by the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to the Parliamentary Service for $87082.77—that being the refunding to the Parliamentary Service of the money that the Auditor-General’s report found according to his interpretation of the rules was spent outside the rules by the Green Party before the last election. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Tabling of Documents — Green Party Electoral Spending 
Tabling of Documents — Green Party Electoral Spending 
[Volume:637;Page:7404] 
Tabling of Documents 
Green Party Electoral Spending 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document. It is a photocopy of a cheque made out by the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to the Parliamentary Service for $87082.77—that being the refunding to the Parliamentary Service of the money that the Auditor-General’s report found according to his interpretation of the rules was spent outside the rules by the Green Party before the last election. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Carter Chris: Points of Order — Electioneering—Public Funds 
Carter Chris: Points of Order — Electioneering—Public Funds 
[Volume:637;Page:7404] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 On that point Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have dealt with the point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] Please be seated. The matter should be raised in the appropriate forum which is the Parliamentary Service Commission. I will hear no more discussion on that point.
Points of Order — Electioneering—Public Funds 
Points of Order — Electioneering—Public Funds 
[Volume:637;Page:7403] 
Points of Order 
Electioneering—Public Funds 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will recall that last year there was considerable public outrage at the way in which the Labour Party dipped shamelessly into public funds in order to produce the election pledge card and associated pamphlets. I want to raise with you Madam Speaker a very serious point because it appears that the Labour Party is at it again. 
Last evening in this Parliament there was a function to celebrate the Chinese New Year. That was a parliamentary occasion paid for out of the resources of Parliament—resources that belong to all parliamentarians and not any one political party. That event was hosted by the Hon Chris Carter. At that function Labour Party members took it upon themselves to distribute a pamphlet you might call it—I would not but it is a small advertising card touting their credentials to a particular group of the New Zealand population. This is electioneering which I understood was not allowed inside the parliamentary complex. It leads to the question— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have heard enough of the member’s statement. It is not a point of order but it is a point that should be raised in the appropriate place which is at the Parliamentary Service Commission. I am sorry Mr Brownlee; it is not a point of order. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 On that point Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have dealt with the point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] Please be seated. The matter should be raised in the appropriate forum which is the Parliamentary Service Commission. I will hear no more discussion on that point.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Electioneering—Public Funds 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Electioneering—Public Funds 
[Volume:637;Page:7403] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will recall that last year there was considerable public outrage at the way in which the Labour Party dipped shamelessly into public funds in order to produce the election pledge card and associated pamphlets. I want to raise with you Madam Speaker a very serious point because it appears that the Labour Party is at it again. 
Last evening in this Parliament there was a function to celebrate the Chinese New Year. That was a parliamentary occasion paid for out of the resources of Parliament—resources that belong to all parliamentarians and not any one political party. That event was hosted by the Hon Chris Carter. At that function Labour Party members took it upon themselves to distribute a pamphlet you might call it—I would not but it is a small advertising card touting their credentials to a particular group of the New Zealand population. This is electioneering which I understood was not allowed inside the parliamentary complex. It leads to the question— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have heard enough of the member’s statement. It is not a point of order but it is a point that should be raised in the appropriate place which is at the Parliamentary Service Commission. I am sorry Mr Brownlee; it is not a point of order.
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:637;Page:7403] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House at its rising today to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 20 February 2007. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:637;Page:7403] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House at its rising today to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 20 February 2007. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7403] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
Next week following the completion of the Prime Minister’s statement debate priority will be given to the Major Events Bill the Judicial Retirement Age Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill and the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). Wednesday is a members’ day. It is my understanding that the maiden statement of Katrina Shanks will be given on Tuesday afternoon at approximately 5 o’clock.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7403] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
Next week following the completion of the Prime Minister’s statement debate priority will be given to the Major Events Bill the Judicial Retirement Age Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill and the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). Wednesday is a members’ day. It is my understanding that the maiden statement of Katrina Shanks will be given on Tuesday afternoon at approximately 5 o’clock.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Sri Lanka—Speaker Parliament United Kingdom—Secretary of State for Education and Skills and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Sri Lanka—Speaker Parliament United Kingdom—Secretary of State for Education and Skills and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
[Volume:637;Page:7403] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in informing members that the Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Rt Hon John Hutton MP Secretary of State for Work and Pensions of the United Kingdom are present in the gallery and I am sure that members would also wish to welcome them.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Sri Lanka—Speaker Parliament United Kingdom—Secretary of State for Education and Skills and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Sri Lanka—Speaker Parliament United Kingdom—Secretary of State for Education and Skills and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
[Volume:637;Page:7403] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Honourable Lokubandara Speaker of the Parliament of Sri Lanka is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the chair. 
The Honourable Lokubandara accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Visitors — Sri Lanka—Speaker Parliament United Kingdom—Secretary of State for Education and Skills and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
Visitors — Sri Lanka—Speaker Parliament United Kingdom—Secretary of State for Education and Skills and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
[Volume:637;Page:7403] 
Thursday 15 February 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Sri Lanka—Speaker Parliament 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Honourable Lokubandara Speaker of the Parliament of Sri Lanka is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the chair. 
The Honourable Lokubandara accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
United Kingdom—Secretary of State for Education and Skills and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in informing members that the Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Rt Hon John Hutton MP Secretary of State for Work and Pensions of the United Kingdom are present in the gallery and I am sure that members would also wish to welcome them.
Coleman Jonathan: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and  Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Coleman Jonathan: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and  Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7531] 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 That was a great speech from the leader of the ACT party and I think he pretty much expressed the National Party’s view as well in that couple of minutes. I must say that it is quite unusual for Mr Hide not to take his full 10 minutes but I think he put the argument very succinctly. 
The National Party strongly opposes this Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. 
Rodney Hide 
: Privatisation’s better eh? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: What do you think Rodney! My colleagues Pansy Wong and David Bennett have already spoken on this bill and they have laid out the issues exceptionally well. In a nutshell we are opposing this bill because the issue is really about the efficiency of a system enabling people to have choice in accident insurance. This bill will place a quite considerable burden on New Zealand businesses and employers and to be honest it has been brought into the House in a most devious and deceptive manner. As my colleague Paul Hutchison noted in his speech in the first reading of this bill several months ago this bill is another example of the “classic arrogant behaviour” that has now become synonymous with the current Labour Government. 
Rodney Hide 
: I feel so bad about this bill I’m going to vote against it twice. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well why not? The first thing I will talk about is the deviousness of the bill as a whole. It purports as members are aware to bypass the normal consultation period. The reason given is that the transition period to the merging of the self-employed work account and the employers’ account needs to be as short as possible in order to ensure that the transition is fair and smooth. Apparently to achieve this the normal consultation period must be bypassed. So essentially the Government is planning to put through legislation without even hearing submissions from the industry—an interesting and not at all democratic concept. I am very interested to know how not consulting the appropriate stakeholders fully and not allowing them the time to give full submissions will result in a fair and smooth transition. 
Debate interrupted.
Hide Rodney: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and  Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hide Rodney: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and  Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7530] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party opposes this Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill and let us make it quite clear why. It seems that in this House there is a failure of memory in preference for an ideological position. The failure of memory relates to the success of giving people choice in accident insurance rather than having a State-run monopoly and I would remind members of the House that that experience was overwhelmingly positive. It was positive from the point of view of the costs to employees but also—most important—to the incentive to get accidents down and to the rehabilitation of people who were injured. I heard the Labour Government and I heard the Green Party—and I do not know where New Zealand First members were—talk as though this was some experiment that was a miserable failure. It was not an experiment at all; it was called choice. It was called private enterprise entrepreneurship and competition and—like when that is tried everywhere else in the world—it worked. 
So who is being sold out by the ideological commitment of this Government and that of other parties to oppose privatisation at every opportunity? Well actually it is every New Zealand business; it is every New Zealand worker; it is every person who has been injured and denied an opportunity to become well. It is Maori and Pakeha; it is Chinese and Indian. 
The idea that we stand up in this House and say that it was terrible and that it was all an ideological commitment is bollocks because when given a choice New Zealanders are not stupid. Certainly New Zealanders are not as stupid as this Government and this Parliament because when New Zealanders look at this legislation they ask what it will cost. They ask what they will get and what is best for them and for their businesses. They ask what is best for them as workers. That is not what we see this Parliament deciding. That is not what we see the Accident Compensation Corporation deciding because what it cares about is what is best for the corporation over the worker and over the business—and for this Government and its short-term political interests over the interests of the entire country. 
We oppose this bill because the ACT party stands full square for choice privatisation and free enterprise. I look forward to the day when there is a majority for some common sense and for some decent policy that will deliver for the working people of New Zealand—not this policy from those namby-pamby socialists over there who would not know a working person or a business if they fell over one. Thank you.
Turner Judy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and  Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and  Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7529] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. Business structure is not in itself a risk; the risk is in the activity of the business. I challenge one of the earlier National Party speakers David Bennett who tended to suggest that if one were self-employed one was some sort of cowboy. Speaking as somebody who has been self-employed my experience as part of that community was that we were quite risk-averse due to the fact that we did not have a backstop should anything go wrong. I have also been an employer in a reasonably high-risk category and I understand the costs constraints and compliances in that sector. 
So United Future welcomes this chance to maintain an activity-based classification and we are also pleased to see that what remain are the programmes that allow for levy adjustments based on safety practices of the company involved. We also acknowledge in the second reading that although it may seem a small technical point that we have renamed the medical misadventure account the treatment injury account it is important to reflect on the fact that although this is technical and merely aligns the name of the account with the new terminology enshrined in the Act the change in terminology happened to reflect a new approach by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to respond in a speedy way to injuries that were sustained due to a medical procedure and to ensure that the victim gets what he or she needs: a rapidly funded response which is not hampered by a lengthy process setting in motion the need to apportion blame for why that injury happened. That matter can happen as a separate process and ACC is now not able to withhold important funding and treatment for somebody in need who has sustained a treatment injury. 
United Future would like to congratulate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We do not have representation on the committee but we did read with interest the report back and we are happy to support the second reading.
Paraone Pita: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7515] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe. Again I stand on behalf of New Zealand First and particularly on behalf of my colleague Ron Mark. 
I want to say right from the start that there is a saying: “There is nothing like experience.” It seems to me that this bill recognises the experience of those who are charged with the responsibility of looking after our legislative requirements. It is good to see that although we accept New Zealand is a unique country we do not believe its uniqueness should extend to the fact that we are the only country at this point of time where members of the judiciary are required to retire at the age of 68. Given that the bill highlights a number of countries where members of the judiciary do not need to retire earlier than the age of 68 it seems appropriate that we should make the best use of our best legal brains. It also seems to me that it is appropriate that this legislation provides an opportunity for those practitioners who want to give up work as a practitioner and sit on the bench. This bill certainly provides that. 
I just want to make some comments about a member’s bill that New Zealand First is responsible for: the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill. It suggests that retired High Court judges and Maori Land Court judges should be able to fulfil the position of chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal. I hope given the comments made by the spokesperson from the Maori Party and particularly recognising the experience of and the high regard we have for the Hon Justice Durie that the Maori Party members will lend their support to that bill. 
I reiterate the support of New Zealand First for this legislation. I note that the report from the Justice and Electoral Committee does not identify who was on that committee. I am not quite sure whether that is an oversight that needs to be corrected. But suffice it to say that we will be supporting this bill.
Pillay Lynne: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — Second Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7515] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee to stand and speak in support of the Judicial Retirement Age Bill. In doing so I want to acknowledge all members of the select committee who with their unanimous and common-sense approach enabled this bill to come back to this House in a timely manner which means that it can very quickly take effect . 
The bill raises the statutory retirement age for all judges associate judges of the High Court coroners and community magistrates from 68 to 70 years. The committee sought comment from the Chief Justice and the Chief District Court Judge both of whom agreed wholeheartedly with the bill and that enabled us to report it back very quickly. The current retirement age for judges is low by international standards. Increasing the retirement age retains the valuable knowledge and experience of judges for longer and brings us into line with other jurisdictions including Australia Ireland and the United Kingdom. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee recommended that the bill be passed without amendment and I am very happy to stand here in this House and reinforce that position.
Barker Rick: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — Second Reading 
Barker Rick: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7509] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the Judicial Retirement Age Bill be now read a second time 
. I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its efficient consideration of this bill. The bill raises the retirement age for all judges of all courts Associate Judges of the High Court coroners and community magistrates from 68 to 70 years. The committee sought comment from the Chief Justice and the Chief District Court judge both of whom agreed wholeheartedly with the bill. As a result the committee has reported this bill back quickly and recommended that it be passed without amendment. 
The bill is very simple and straightforward. Its sole purpose is to raise the statutory retirement age for all judges and certain other judicial officers. This will bring New Zealand in line with other jurisdictions including Australia Ireland and the United Kingdom. The bill will enable experienced judges to provide their services for a longer time. It will also ensure that those who are eligible for appointment to the bench will be more attracted to it because they will have the ability to remain on the bench for a longer time. This will hopefully encourage more practitioners and academics to consider a career on the bench. I mentioned earlier in my first reading speech that there are two other things that the bill will do: it will help ensure judicial independence and it will help ensure that there is no reason for judges to be monitored for incapacity reasons. 
I have circulated two Supplementary Order Papers to the bill. The first Supplementary Order Paper removes clause 3 which provides the purpose of the bill—namely “to increase the statutory retiring age of Judges Associate Judges of the High Court coroners and Community Magistrates”. Once the bill has been divided into six bills clause 3 will no longer be necessary. The second Supplementary Order Paper divides the bill into six separate amendments respectively amending the Judicature Act 1908 the District Courts Act 1947 the Employment Relations Act 2000 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 the Coroners Act 1988 and the Coroners Act 2006. Again I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its swift consideration and I look forward to the swift action of this House to pass this legislation.
Hodgson Pete: Major Events Management Bill — First Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Major Events Management Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7509] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Sport and Recreation 
: 
 I move  
That the Major Events Management Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee 
referred to Commerce Committee 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 15 June 2007. 
Motion agreed to.
Paraone Pita: Major Events Management Bill — First Reading 
Paraone Pita: Major Events Management Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7503] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am standing in for my colleague Ron Mark who is our spokesperson on this issue. Due to unforeseen circumstances he is not able to be present in the House at this moment. I will take a short call just to make sure that New Zealand First’s contribution is made to this debate. 
I say from the start that we will certainly support the Major Events Management Bill going to the Commerce Committee because it is important that the people of New Zealand are given the opportunity to have a say on what is I believe very important legislation. The fact that our country will be hosting a number of international events means it is important that we ensure that those responsible for carrying out those events are protected in some way. 
I want to make a point in respect of the declaration of a major event. The bill states that ambush marketing protection should not be overused and that the bill will apply only to major events. The exception to that rule will be the events that New Zealand hosts on a regular basis. I want to ask a question in regard to events like the Bledisloe Cup which is an annual event and for those who follow rugby is probably considered to be a major event. I have seen on the Internet that a number of tickets have been scalped—those who are selling them have obtained them through legal means of course—and I just wonder whether events like the Bledisloe Cup should not be covered in this legislation. However having said that I would expect that during the select committee process particular issues like that one will be covered. 
As I said this would be a short call and I say that New Zealand First will be supporting the bill going to a select committee. Kia ora. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I advise members that the member Te Ururoa Flavell will speak in Maori then there will be an interpretation for the benefit of members.
Copeland Gordon: Major Events Management Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Major Events Management Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7498] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will also be supporting the Major Events Management Bill 2006 going to the relevant select committee. I must say that when I read through the bill and its contents my mind immediately went back to the role I had in being part of the organising committee for the visit of Pope John Paul II to New Zealand in 1986. It was a massive undertaking. He was here for 48 hours and had face-to-face contact with more then 200000 people and many hundreds of thousands also saw him on TV during that time. The first thing we did was to form a company and copyright a logo for the visit because we were so conscious given the entrepreneurial inclinations of many Kiwis which I greatly admire that there would be all sorts of hucksters who would be crowding in on the events to line their own pockets with what might have been all kinds of inappropriate souvenirs and memorabilia etc. We thought it necessary right from day one to take control and ensure we had a proper systematic system for ensuring that people who were reasonable and responsible in what they wanted to do were the only ones who could officially participate in the event. 
So from that first-hand experience I can really appreciate the need for a bill such as this one when we come to the major events that are planned in New Zealand starting with the Netball World Championships later this year and going through into 2015 when we host the Cricket World Cup. I guess there will be other major events that come along in the interval. 
I thought the bill bulletin issued by Parliamentary Library was very very good in the way it set out all of the reasons we need such a bill under very interesting headings: “Faking It” about rogue traders who move in; “Facility Marketing”; “Individual Sponsorships”; and “Using the Fans”. It really does prove the ingenuity I suppose of entrepreneurs in places like Germany who for the 2006 FIFA World Cup where people who had no sponsorship rights whatsoever in the event actually got a group of fans to come along—for a fee of course—and wear their T-shirts. Some of us will remember that that had a pretty unfortunate effect on the sponsorship of Budweiser which was probably short-changed by the way in which its sponsorship was ambushed by others who seized the opportunity to make a bob or two at the expense of the official sponsors. 
The issue of scalping tickets etc. is also there in the bill bulletin. So we have no doubt at all that there is a need for a bill like this one if we are to adopt world best practice in terms of sponsoring these major events. We will follow the bill through the select committee process with interest and hope to see it reported back to the House and eventually passed into legislation so that New Zealand can continue to be a destination of choice for major events.
Chauvel Charles: Major Events Management Bill — First Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Major Events Management Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7498] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the introduction of the Major Events Management Bill and to welcome the support of the previous speaker Murray McCully who indicated that the National Party will support the bill going to a select committee. That is the correct approach to take and it is pleasing to see a constructive approach being taken to the legislation. It is important to deal with ambush marketing given the amount of sponsorship dollars that are spent by major corporates on major events such as those that the bill will deal with. As the previous speaker observed it is a good thing to be able to attract major events to New Zealand. In order to do that we need to have a competitive regulatory regime similar to the regimes operated in jurisdictions that have considerable success in attracting those events. 
 It is interesting to consider the situation in regimes comparable with ours particularly those in Australia. There Olympic-related legislation and two statutes—one federal and one a statute of the Parliament of New South Wales—were used to protect the Sydney Olympics. Those Acts are the Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 1996 and the Olympic Arrangements Act 2000. That legislation controlled street trading the sale of tickets and airspace and aerial advertising and prohibited advertising on buildings or structures. Australia also has Commonwealth Games - related legislation that protected the interests of Victoria as Melbourne hosted the Commonwealth Games in 2006. It is a very similar scheme to that of the New South Wales and federal legislation. Victoria also has the Australian Grands Prix Act 1994 and the 1996 regulations made under that statute. 
In South Africa there are two relevant statutory provisions both introduced in 2001 to cater for the 2003 Cricket World Cup and in the UK there is the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006. Finally by way of comparison in the Caribbean nations the ICC Cricket World Cup West Indies 2007 Bill has been introduced. All that legislation has broadly similar provisions to those in the bill that the Minister Trevor Mallard has introduced. They are appropriate in order to ensure that New Zealand can continue to attract major events with the consequent benefit for our economy and the world publicity that we receive. 
This bill is a good bill in my view and I commend it to the House.
Vote: Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7494] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time. 
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 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7494] 
Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time. 
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 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Parker David: Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Parker David: Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7494] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Absence 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Absence 
[Volume:637;Page:7491] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think an issue has arisen that does require your further consideration. It relates to the matter of leave provided to Taito Phillip Field. Because what has been discussed this afternoon is that a member can be given leave from this Parliament for public business illness or a family matter. The Labour whip previously suspended under the Prime Minister’s orders Taito Phillip Field from his parliamentary duties and from all electorate duties. Taito Phillip Field was absent from this House under the authority of the Labour whip for a period of some months. He was suspended from all parliamentary duties and all public business in his electorate. 
What I think you need to indicate to the House is the validity of that period of absence—a prolonged period of absence from this Parliament—for a member of this Parliament when clearly that absence because the Labour whip suspended him from his parliamentary and electorate duties could not possibly have been on public business. We know the member was not sick for that full period of time and I do not imagine it would be possible to construct a family reason why the member was absent for that time. This Parliament does ultimately have the say over how long a member can be absent from this Parliament. You are responsible for making sure the Standing Orders are upheld in that regard. It would seem to me there has been some breach there. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I would refer him to—I am sorry I do not have it in front of me—I think  
Hansard 
 on 6 December where I gave an extensive ruling on this matter. But I am very happy to make it available to the member again; it dealt with the issue of absence from Parliament.
Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Absence 
Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Absence 
[Volume:637;Page:7491] 
Points of Order 
Taito Phillip Field—Absence 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think an issue has arisen that does require your further consideration. It relates to the matter of leave provided to Taito Phillip Field. Because what has been discussed this afternoon is that a member can be given leave from this Parliament for public business illness or a family matter. The Labour whip previously suspended under the Prime Minister’s orders Taito Phillip Field from his parliamentary duties and from all electorate duties. Taito Phillip Field was absent from this House under the authority of the Labour whip for a period of some months. He was suspended from all parliamentary duties and all public business in his electorate. 
What I think you need to indicate to the House is the validity of that period of absence—a prolonged period of absence from this Parliament—for a member of this Parliament when clearly that absence because the Labour whip suspended him from his parliamentary and electorate duties could not possibly have been on public business. We know the member was not sick for that full period of time and I do not imagine it would be possible to construct a family reason why the member was absent for that time. This Parliament does ultimately have the say over how long a member can be absent from this Parliament. You are responsible for making sure the Standing Orders are upheld in that regard. It would seem to me there has been some breach there. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I would refer him to—I am sorry I do not have it in front of me—I think  
Hansard 
 on 6 December where I gave an extensive ruling on this matter. But I am very happy to make it available to the member again; it dealt with the issue of absence from Parliament.
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7490] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That this House has no confidence in the Government led by Helen Clark because it lacks any vision or purpose apart from getting re-elected it refuses to be accountable or responsible for the public services it oversees it is tired and bereft of ideas and all it can offer New Zealand is a collection of empty slogans. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion not agreed to.
Smith Nick: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Smith Nick: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7490] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; but you were asked to leave the Chamber till the end of the day. I am not sure what you are doing here but I am sure someone else will raise your point. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: You change the rules to suit yourself. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not. I gave an instruction to that effect and I am sorry if it did not get through to you. 
A party vote was called for on the question That all the words after the word “That” be omitted and the following substituted: “this House has no confidence in the Government which is in denial about the real issues confronting New Zealanders keeping families dependent on government and stands between our people and prosperity.” 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Turia Tariana: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Turia Tariana: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7490] 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Under subparagraph (i) of Standing Order 156(d) anybody can be away from Parliament “for illness or other family cause of a personal nature” but that has not been raised. The issue being raised now is whether he is away on public business and it has been very clear that he has given his vote to the Labour Party whip. He has said that publicly and if he is away on business that is of a personal nature that is allowed. It was certainly allowed to me when I was on my own. So I cannot see what the argument is about actually. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I said it is for the member to decide whether he wishes to have his vote cast through proxy with the Government whip in this instance. The member knows the rules. I have accepted the word of the member.
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. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on that matter. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am sorry; I know that. I would hate to upset you at this stage. I know that we are accepting the member’s word for how the vote is to be cast. I know that we are accepting his word that he is happy for the Labour Party to cast it but what I do not understand is that as the requirement is for Taito Phillip Field to be on public business are we accepting the word of the Labour Party whip that Taito Phillip Field is on public business? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Field knows what the rules are. He knows he has to be on public business to enable the Government to cast his proxy vote. I have accepted his word and obviously the Government whip has accepted his word. I have accepted it because that has been accepted. So that as far as I am concerned is the end of the matter.