edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Harawira Hone: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Harawira Hone: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6983] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 In respect of Part 4 I would like to raise a generic issue about the settlement of claims whether relating to aquaculture or otherwise and I would like to raise a point that was brought up with me by one of my whanaunga from Te Tai Tokerau where many wise people come from. He said to me that one of the reasons we should be opposing the Treaty claims settlement process be it in relation to aquaculture or otherwise is that— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the member but can you clarify for the benefit of the Committee the position concerning a member who is speaking from a chair other than one allocated to the party he belongs to. Is that appropriate even in the Committee stage? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member should be speaking from his own chair please. We will give him plenty of time to get over there. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I thank Mr Benson-Pope for his assistance. I just wanted to point out an issue that was raised with me in respect of aquaculture claims settlements and claims settlements generally. The point raised with me and I have since had it clarified with some of the officials myself is that one of the concerns Maori should have in respect of these settlements is that once the Treaty settlement process is considerably through—that is 50 percent is good enough—the Crown will then be able to signal to the World Bank and to the International Monetary Fund that this place no longer has encumbrances on the kind of rape and pillage brigade that goes into countries for the singular purpose of amassing wealth and securing the resources of indigenous people. 
I wanted to raise that here and put it on the record as a concern of the Maori Party that be it in respect of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act of 2004 or be it in respect of the Treaty claims settlement process there is a desperate need for Maori to oppose an end date to the claim processes in order to ensure that those encumbrances remain for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Once those encumbrances are removed the country becomes open to attacks by and the invasion of big money corporates from overseas who will have no respect for the rights of not only Maori in this country but Pakeha as well. Koi na noa taku korero mo tenei po. 
[ 
That is my contribution for tonight. 
]
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6983] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6982] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6982] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6982] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 18(2) be agreed to: 
to omit the expression “1 September 2008” and substitute the expression “1 September 2050”.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6982] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 18(1) be agreed to: 
to omit the expression “1 September 2008” and substitute the expression “1 September 2050”.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6981] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 18 be agreed to: 
to omit new section 6AA.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6981] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit the expression “21 September 1992” and substitute the expression “1 January 1841”.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6981] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The first amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 2 to omit this part is out of order as it is a direct negation of the question that Part 2 stand part. The proper course of action is to vote against the part. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Fenton Darien: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6981] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hodgson Pete: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6979] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6971] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6971] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6970] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add as subclause (2) the following subclause: 
(2)Section 7 is amended by adding the following subsection: 
“(8)Any judge appointed under subsection (1) may also preside in a District Court if agreed to by the Chief Judge.”
te Heuheu Georgina: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6970] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to comment on Te Ururoa Flavell’s amendment although it is actually Minister Parekura Horomia’s job to rebut it as this bill is in his name. I do not believe that the member Te Ururoa Flavell’s proposed amendment is in order. It seems to me to be outside the scope of this bill. I raise the question that if the stated reason for increasing the number of judges from eight to 14 is an increase in their workload—and we are talking about their workload in the Maori Land Court—then why would anybody in his or her right mind consider that we allow the Maori Land Court judges to also sit in the District Court? That seems to make no sense at all; it is totally illogical. I have already questioned whether there is sufficient workload at this point in time to warrant an increase in the number of judges. There may be in the future; we probably think that there may be. But the fact is that the allocation of fisheries in regard to that aspect of an increased workload seems to be going reasonably well anyway. 
Maybe our anticipating the need for this increase may come to nothing in the end. But as I say the stated reason for this increase in the number of judges is the increase in their workload. In my view it is absolutely a nonsense that a suggestion should be made that they also sit in the District Court. 
I comment on the point that Pita Paraone made as well which is whether that would then mean that someone would seek a corresponding crossover. I do not even have to raise the issue of whether we are talking about Maori judges or Pakeha judges; the reality is that the jurisdiction is different. National would not support this amendment on the grounds that it is totally illogical with regard to the purpose stated in the bill.
Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6970] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 In talking to the proposed amendment I say that it does raise a particular issue for me. If we support this amendment as proposed by the Maori Party it begs the question whether the exchange will be a two-way one. I am not quite sure whether in fact the Maori Party would appreciate a number of non-Maori judges presiding in the Maori Land Court making decisions that will affect Maori. When I say that I want to make it clear that I am not critical about the appointment of non-Maori to the Maori Land Court jurisdiction because I believe that race should not be an issue and that we do get the best people presiding on matters such as Maori land. I am not sure that this is the intent of this amendment but on the face of it I cannot see New Zealand First supporting it.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6969] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I am not too sure whether this is the appropriate time but I was hoping that the Minister the Hon Parekura Horomia might respond to the notion of extending the warrant of Maori Land Court judges. I stand up and offer him the opportunity again to have a go at that one bearing in mind that if we are talking about workload—and he just provided some background to that—one would support that notion. Surely extending warrants a little bit wider—if they are required—might help with that situation. Of course it is always in the hands of the Chief Judge. I stand to encourage the Minister to respond to that notion if he can.
Horomia Parekura: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6969] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Several submissions on the Maori Purposes Bill commented that the workload of the Maori Land Court was already heavy and that delays were being experienced. Although Te Ture Whenua Maori Act allows temporary judges to be appointed permanent appointments are needed to address ongoing work levels. The intention is not to appoint six extra judges immediately but to make additional appointments in stages. At present the court is operating with a full complement of eight judges plus an additional two temporary judges. 
In relation to the retrospective legislation very careful consideration was given to the need to validate Judge Smith’s decisions. It is the best way of providing certainty to the applicants and other parties concerned. The decisions were made by an experienced former Deputy Chief Judge for a short period after the expiry of his temporary warrant. There are no issues about the judge’s expertise or competence. Individuals and their families should not be left open to the stress and expense of other action. It is important to mention that this provision is not groundbreaking. Legislation of this kind is needed from time to time. In regard to the Maori Land Court in 1991 the Government of the day National passed retrospective legislation to validate decisions of Judge McHugh.
Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Maori Purposes Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:636;Page:6966] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 My apologies Madam Chair. I was expecting to hear from the new Maori affairs spokesperson from the second-largest party in this House but obviously the new leadership has kicked in and there does not seem to be any interest in this bill. 
I stand to take a call on this part and I want to pick up on a comment made by the last speaker when reference was made to rights to justice being interfered with in relation particularly to some orders made by a former judge of the Maori Land Court—and can I say a very eminent member of the judiciary at the time—Judge Norman Smith. I am not quite sure but I believe it was he himself who brought it to the attention of the authorities that his warrant had expired. That is point No. 1. 
Secondly I question whether the rights to justice of people whose cases were affected by the decision of that judge had been interfered with. In any of those cases if the applicant was concerned about the final decision made by the court then he or she certainly still had the opportunity to follow due process. The fact that the judge was honest enough to recognise an oversight in terms of the renewal of his warrant is not a case I believe to suggest that rights to justice were interfered with. 
The other issue I want to refer to in this part is the exercising of special powers being delegated from the Chief Judge to the Deputy Chief Judge. During the second reading I made reference to the point that the need to do that is possibly a result of the fact that the Chief Judge is currently also chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal and that this extra duty has some impact on his ability to carry out his duties. But I was reminded by my caucus colleagues that because we are human we also get sick from time to time and if the Chief Judge were to take ill who would carry out his duties while he was off work? So we support the idea of the Chief Judge being able to delegate his authority to the Deputy Chief Judge. 
Although we did express some concern about the notion of validation legislation I think that in the case I detailed earlier and based on the advice given to us by officials during the select committee process we do not think that such validation would have any impact on the orders that were made by the judge at the time. 
I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say that we support this part of the bill. Kia ora.
Borrows Chester: Appointments — Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Police Complaints Authority 
Borrows Chester: Appointments — Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Police Complaints Authority 
[Volume:636;Page:6958] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to endorse the appointment of Justice Lowell Goddard QC to the role of Police Complaints Authority in her first term for a 5-year term. Justice Goddard comes to this position with a long history as a high-profile member of our judiciary and I am sure that she will bring to this position a significant degree of integrity. That is a very important attribute for the Police Complaints Authority to hold in order to allow it to endure as a system. 
The role of the authority is to investigate complaints against the police and to scrutinise the procedures of the police in the various circumstances that cause the public some concern from time to time such as deaths in police cells police shootings and some other matters. The role is one of being the official scrutineer of public and police engagement so the authority has the ability to either enhance or counter confidence in the police depending on the way that the police are found to have carried out their duties. There is also the dual role of the authority in terms of running its own investigations and supervising investigations of police officers by the police a particular process that has come in for some flak in the past. 
We all need to have confidence in the police’s ability to achieve their objective of carrying out their core business of protecting life and property. So I look forward to the beginning of work in this role by Justice Goddard in February. At the same time I pay respect to Justice Ian Borrin who has served in this role prior to this appointment. The manner in which he has conducted his duties the scrutiny and evaluation he has held police under and the level of integrity with which the authority has carried out its role in terms of scrutiny and evaluation has really been second to none. I look forward to that continuing. Thank you.
Tisch Lindsay: Appointments — Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Police Complaints Authority 
Tisch Lindsay: Appointments — Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Police Complaints Authority 
[Volume:636;Page:6958] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National will be splitting its calls on this debate. I will speak on the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and my colleague Chester Borrows will speak on the motion to appoint the Police Complaints Authority. 
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is an Officer of Parliament appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House for a term of 5 years. We heard earlier that that term will start in March 2007. My colleague the Hon Clem Simich was on the subcommittee of the Officers of Parliament Committee that interviewed and made the recommendation of Dr Wright for this position. I was on the Officers of Parliament Committee that confirmed that appointment and now it is coming through to the House. 
The office powers and functions of the commissioner are established by the Environment Act of 1986. The commissioner is required to comply with section 17 of the Public Finance Act of 1989 and accounts to the Speaker as the responsible Minister for the office. The commissioner has the capacity to investigate report and make recommendations on any matter where the environment may be or has been adversely affected. But the commissioner does not have the power to make any binding rulings and is unable to reverse decisions made by public authorities or the courts. The commissioner provides Parliament with advice and an independent check on the capability of the New Zealand system of environmental management and the performance of public authorities central and local with statutory and administrative responsibilities for maintaining and improving the quality of the environment. 
And so it is that this House is making a recommendation to appoint Dr Janice Claire Wright to the position of Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment a very important position. Dr Wright has a very good CV. I have it in front of me. I do not intend to go through it at length but I can tell members that she is a very talented and determined person. She has those qualities that will enable her to be an excellent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment so the National Party supports the recommendation of the Minister and we look forward to working with Dr Wright in the ensuing years.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Appointments — Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Police Complaints Authority 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Appointments — Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Police Complaints Authority 
[Volume:636;Page:6956] 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector 
) 
on behalf of the 
Leader of the House 
and on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
:  
I move  
That pursuant to section 4 of the Environment Act 1986 this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Dr Janice Claire Wright of Wellington as Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment for a term commencing on 5 March 2007.
Vote: Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6956] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Motion agreed to.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6956] 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister for Senior Citizens 
: I move  
That the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee 
referred to Social Services Committee 
 that the committee finally report back the bill to the House on or before 5 April 2007 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1) (b) and (c).
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:636;Page:6920] 
5.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What steps has the Government taken to further improve training and work opportunities for young people? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House that yesterday the Government signed a new memorandum of understanding with the Mayors Task Force for Jobs which represents 71 mayors reaffirming a shared goal for all 15 to 19-year-olds to be in appropriate education training or work. At the same time we launched the task force’s campaign Our Youth Our Future with its particular focus on Maori youth enterprise and employment on investing in youth locally and on young people with disabilities. This is one of a number of Government and wider community initiatives that are contributing to the long-term economic independence and well-being of New Zealand’s young people. I am sure all members of the House will join me in congratulating the mayors on their efforts in this area. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What reports has he seen on changes in the number of youth who receive benefits? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: In the 4 years following the signing of the first Mayors Task Force for Jobs memorandum of understanding in September 2002 unemployment benefit numbers for under-25-year-olds fell from 30000 to 9000. Unemployment benefit numbers among young Maori fell from 12000 to 4000 and the numbers among young Pacific people fell from 2900 to just 800. Each of those reductions has been at a rate greater than the general drop in unemployment numbers. Since 1999 there have been 30000 more young people now employed in the workforce.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:636;Page:6917] 
3.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that schools have access to good assessment information on their students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yesterday the Government announced a new resource that helps schools to identify the learning needs of every student and then fix them. The resource is part of asTTle a world-leading tool that gives parents and teachers an accurate picture of how well their child is doing at school. It is used by over 94 percent of schools and it plots individual achievement helps teachers adapt their teaching and provides comparable data from similar schools. This is an essential tool to the Government’s strategy to deliver high standards that meet the needs of every student in every school. 
Moana Mackey 
: Is the Minister aware of any alternative policies for the use of assessment information? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am aware of a bill that would set national standards for literacy and numeracy. The approach of that bill would be to lock children into centrally imposed standards determined by their age not by their ability. It would lead to a formula approach to teaching and put pressure on schools to teach to the test rather than to the individual needs of students. The New Zealand Educational Institute has described this policy as “School Certificate for 5-year-olds”. It will leave students frustrated and powerless with no idea of what they need to do to improve. This is the narrow centralised policy championed by the former education spokesperson for the National Party. I doubt whether someone as wise as Katherine Rich will take the same approach. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How many schools are at present undertaking assessment for better learning projects or contracts; and at the current rate how long will it be before all schools in New Zealand are provided with such valuable professional support? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not have the precise figures with me at the present time but the figure is around half. I hope that if we carry on improving at the current rate with the resources we want to put in all schools will have access to such support within the next 5 or 6 years.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:636;Page:6914] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for Government notices of motion Nos 3 and 4 relating to the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the Police Complaints Authority respectively to be taken as a single debate of 10-minute speeches with the two questions to be put separately at the conclusion of the debate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
[Volume:636;Page:6913] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I first thank you very much for giving us that ruling so very quickly but can I point out that your ruling centres on leave provisions and the circumstances in which members may find themselves absent from this House quite legitimately. Those issues are mentioned in David McGee’s book  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 at around page 38 I understand. Further on there is quite a discussion about the way in which votes can be cast and the entitlement of members to have their votes cast by whips under proxy. In that case I refer you to about page 205 which I think is slightly contradictory to the position taken in your ruling today. I wonder whether you might look at that in order to satisfy us that all the aspects of parliamentary practice in New Zealand are being followed in the case of this particular absence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Yes I did refer to that when making my ruling.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
[Volume:636;Page:6913] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: A point of order was raised in the House yesterday concerning the absence of members. I remind members of the convention that the absence of members is not referred to during the course of debate. However I have considered the rules surrounding the attendance of members. No record of members’ attendance in the House is now maintained and the Standing Orders no longer require members to attend the House. The attendance of members is a matter for their own party whips. The Speaker does not intervene unless statutorily required to do so or as provided in Standing Order 156(4)(d) in relation to the casting of proxy votes for Independent members or a party consisting of one member. 
The Electoral Act 1993 provides that a member who fails to attend throughout an entire session without being granted leave by the House loses his or her seat. In such a circumstance the Speaker would be required to act to start the process of filling the vacancy. However as a session is now expected to last the full term of Parliament—that is the 3 years—this provision is somewhat redundant. 
Section 20 of the Civil List Act 1979 provides for a deduction of $10 from a member’s salary for each sitting day exceeding 14 on which a member is absent during a session of Parliament. It does not apply where the absence is as a result of attending conferences ceremonies meetings or travelling on any mission or business as a representative of Parliament or with the authority of the House. In addition deductions are not made where the Speaker certifies that the absence is caused by illness or other unavoidable cause. No such certification has been issued in the current Parliament.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — United Kingdom—Work and Pensions Select Committee House of Commons 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — United Kingdom—Work and Pensions Select Committee House of Commons 
[Volume:636;Page:6913] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the members of the Work and Pensions Select Committee of the House of Commons led by Mr Terry Rooney chair of the committee are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:636;Page:6914] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for Government notices of motion Nos 3 and 4 relating to the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the Police Complaints Authority respectively to be taken as a single debate of 10-minute speeches with the two questions to be put separately at the conclusion of the debate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Speaker’s Rulings — Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
Speaker’s Rulings — Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
[Volume:636;Page:6913] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
Madam SPEAKER 
: A point of order was raised in the House yesterday concerning the absence of members. I remind members of the convention that the absence of members is not referred to during the course of debate. However I have considered the rules surrounding the attendance of members. No record of members’ attendance in the House is now maintained and the Standing Orders no longer require members to attend the House. The attendance of members is a matter for their own party whips. The Speaker does not intervene unless statutorily required to do so or as provided in Standing Order 156(4)(d) in relation to the casting of proxy votes for Independent members or a party consisting of one member. 
The Electoral Act 1993 provides that a member who fails to attend throughout an entire session without being granted leave by the House loses his or her seat. In such a circumstance the Speaker would be required to act to start the process of filling the vacancy. However as a session is now expected to last the full term of Parliament—that is the 3 years—this provision is somewhat redundant. 
Section 20 of the Civil List Act 1979 provides for a deduction of $10 from a member’s salary for each sitting day exceeding 14 on which a member is absent during a session of Parliament. It does not apply where the absence is as a result of attending conferences ceremonies meetings or travelling on any mission or business as a representative of Parliament or with the authority of the House. In addition deductions are not made where the Speaker certifies that the absence is caused by illness or other unavoidable cause. No such certification has been issued in the current Parliament. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I first thank you very much for giving us that ruling so very quickly but can I point out that your ruling centres on leave provisions and the circumstances in which members may find themselves absent from this House quite legitimately. Those issues are mentioned in David McGee’s book  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 at around page 38 I understand. Further on there is quite a discussion about the way in which votes can be cast and the entitlement of members to have their votes cast by whips under proxy. In that case I refer you to about page 205 which I think is slightly contradictory to the position taken in your ruling today. I wonder whether you might look at that in order to satisfy us that all the aspects of parliamentary practice in New Zealand are being followed in the case of this particular absence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Yes I did refer to that when making my ruling.
Visitors — United Kingdom—Work and Pensions Select Committee House of Commons 
Visitors — United Kingdom—Work and Pensions Select Committee House of Commons 
[Volume:636;Page:6913] 
Wednesday 6 December 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
United Kingdom—Work and Pensions Select Committee House of Commons 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the members of the Work and Pensions Select Committee of the House of Commons led by Mr Terry Rooney chair of the committee are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Fairbrother Russell: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Fairbrother Russell: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7339] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I will be voting against the vote of no confidence in the Government because the speech made by the Prime Minister yesterday was one of leadership and values. She spoke of the value of work and the value of assistance to those who need it. She showed the leadership that has been exemplified by this Government over the last 7 years which the raucous crowd across the Chamber can only ogle and envy. She said such things as: “Labour believes that the best form of social security is a job underpinned by fair labour law good public healthcare and education and affordable housing for people on low incomes.” The leadership on this issue has been led by this Government for the last 7 years in incremental steps and large steps but always progressive steps. 
For one example we can go back to December of last year when the Government introduced the Social Security Amendment Bill. One of the aims of that bill is to begin the movement towards a work-focused system by ensuring that requirements on welfare recipients are aligned with significant developments in service delivery and support. That is why today I support the needs of the mother of a 10-month-old child to have an adequate income over the demands of an employer who offers part-time casual work to a mother who can take up that work only by placing her 10-month-old child with transient babysitters thereby placing that child and the mother in considerable jeopardy. 
This Government stands for the future of our nation it stands for our young people for our children for sustainability and it stands for jobs that pay adequate incomes. I support the Government and will be voting against the motion.
Dunne Peter: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Hon Matt Robson—Contempt of House 
Dunne Peter: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Hon Matt Robson—Contempt of House 
[Volume:637;Page:7339] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 First I thank the Privileges Committee for its consideration of the complaint that I made. I also say that I am naturally gratified by the conclusion it has reached. I now await the receipt of both apologies. I make no comment on Mr Robson’s comments yesterday and I certainly do not intend to take any further action in respect of them as the Minister of Finance may have feared. I think he stands condemned by his own comments in that regard and no further action is required. 
I simply want to make one further broad point about why I raised the complaint in the first place. It was not raised lightly and it is certainly not the case that every time someone is subject to criticism he or she does not like that person should run off to the Privileges Committee. But the allegation that was made went to the heart of one’s integrity in this House. We come here as free members exercising our free minds in making decisions on the issues before us. The implication contained in the statement made by Mr Robson was that in the case of—I think from memory—the lowering of the drinking age my mind was anything but free and was the captive of some others. That is the essential contempt that I took exception to. 
Mr Harawira is partly right in what he says. It is not the first time the issue has been raised. In fact 10 years ago I took a similar complaint to the Privileges Committee over comments made by Action on Smoking and Health at that time. The point I want to draw from that which is not the point the member who preceded me made is that an unfortunate intolerance is developing in the public health sector to debate on these issues. I simply say to those groups which are entitled to their strong views as I am to mine and others are to theirs that in progressing their cause they should not assume that those who have a different view are somehow acting as the agents of others. It is too easy an accusation to fly about. Although I do not intend to continue raising matters of this type I give notice that if future allegations of this type are raised that impugn my integrity I will be back before the Privileges Committee. I think it is possible to have a reasonable debate on these issues without descending into personalities. 
The final point I would make is that I have been involved in alcohol control policies for probably longer than anyone in this House. My involvement goes back nearly 30 years and my views are formed not by prejudice but by looking always at what works and what does not work. Our record has not been a good one many of the measures we have adopted over that time have not worked and I will not be silenced in saying so. 
I thank the committee for its careful consideration of the case. I say in due modesty that I think it came to the right decision and I now await the outcome from Mr Robson. 
Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Hon Matt Robson—Contempt of House 
Brownlee Gerry: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Hon Matt Robson—Contempt of House 
[Volume:637;Page:7337] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I think the deputy chairperson of the Privileges Committee has outlined very well the case that was brought against Mr Robson and the reasons for it. I just add to it by saying that to some people it may look at first glance as if this were a relatively trivial matter and a matter that perhaps should not have occupied so much time. But the reality is that it goes right to the heart of the ability of members of Parliament to carry out their parliamentary duties not only as constituent representatives but also as legislators in this country free from the accusations of any who would like to bring them that they are somehow under the direction or employ or in the service of bodies that are outside this particular institution. 
If one were to read the comments made by Mr Robson in a broad sense one would see that the allegation was that Mr Dunne was not a free individual but was in some way encumbered by those who were funding his political party. Of course although we read that and immediately know it to be untrue and give it no real moment for consideration the fact that someone makes that allegation impinges upon the freedom of members of Parliament to go about their business. So it was appropriate for the Privileges Committee to consider this matter and I think the requirement on Mr Robson to make his various apologies is a minimal position we could have reached but is in this case appropriate. I am disappointed that he has decided to reflect publicly upon the processes of the Privileges Committee; I think we could have expected more of him given that he is a former chair of that committee. But we on this side of the House certainly support the findings of that committee and are very pleased that the matter was brought before the committee. We accept as Dr Cullen has said that it is not necessary to pick up on everything anyone says but I point out that the reality of this was the very specific allegations of some encumbrance on Mr Dunne that were simply untrue.
Cullen Michael: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Hon Matt Robson—Contempt of House 
Cullen Michael: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Hon Matt Robson—Contempt of House 
[Volume:637;Page:7336] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Chairperson of the Privileges Committee) 
: 
 I move  
That this House— 
(1) resolves that the action of Hon Matt Robson in respect of his statement in his email newsletter “ 
Robson-on-politics” 
 on 1 November 2006 to the effect that the liquor and tobacco industries’ support for the Hon Peter Dunne “has always meant that he has faithfully delivered his vote for their interests” constitutes a contempt of the House  
(2) orders that Hon Matt Robson make an unqualified apology to the House and that this be read by the Speaker when received  
(3) orders that Hon Matt Robson make an unqualified apology to Hon Peter Dunne and that this apology be published in his next “ 
Robson-on-politics” 
 email newsletter or similar vehicle. 
On speaking I hope relatively briefly to this report since the motion is lengthy and largely self-explanatory and in the unavoidable absence of the chairperson of the Privileges Committee Simon Power it falls to me in my lofty role as deputy chairperson of that committee to present this report. The Hon Matt Robson made certain statements in his email newsletter on 1 November to which the Hon Peter Dunne took exception. The committee was of the unanimous view that a fair and reasonable person reading those comments would conclude from them that Mr Dunne had in effect been improperly influenced by financial support from the liquor industry to cast his vote in certain ways within the House. There was in the committee’s view no doubt that that constituted a contempt and warranted an apology from Mr Robson both to the House and to Mr Dunne. 
I will make two comments. Understanding as I do Mr Dunne’s strong feelings on the matter I would raise nevertheless whether in all circumstances members need to bring such matters before the Privileges Committee. I have a feeling that if most of us listened to talkback radio during the day we would get very tired writing letters of complaint of privilege to you Madam Speaker given what passes for normal debate these days on much of the media in that respect. 
Secondly I wish to note that unfortunately Mr Robson has made further comments since about the committee’s conclusions which I think at the least can be described as not necessary and unwise. I simply ask given certain other duties that I have to perform at this stage that I hope we will not in fact see him back before us on those particular matters so that we can simply give them the passing ignorance that perhaps they deserve.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7334] 
11.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received on the quality of New Zealand’s drinking water? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have had several reports. One was from the Hon Nick Smith last month stating that 24 percent of our drinking water is unsafe that that is “an appalling statistic” and that “enforcement action is needed”. I received two other reports a few months earlier. Those stated that New Zealand is known for having the best standard of drinking water in the world that it has excellent standards of drinking water and that this is a problem that does not need fixing. Those statements were made by Dr Coleman and Dr Blue. So the National Party is both deeply concerned about the quality of New Zealand’s drinking water and deeply unconcerned. If that is the nature of its concern then it is no wonder that it has not managed to formulate any health policy. National cannot even work out what it wants to do about New Zealand’s drinking water.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7322] 
2.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports if any has he received on the success of the Government’s Working for Families tax credit programme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 This programme has been very successful with the estimated total number of eligible families at around 360000 in the 2006-07 tax year. In particular it is delivering very substantial reductions in the proportion of children living in poverty. 
Shane Jones 
: What reports has the Minister received on the desirability of fully implementing the programme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Ministry of Social Development estimates that full implementation with the $10 per week per child increase on 1 April this year and the family support tax credit will lead to a reduction in child poverty of up to 70 percent which will put us in the top five countries in the OECD in that respect. I have also seen the promise of Mr Key in the last election to cancel that $10 per week per child increase—enough to pay for a basic breakfast for a child—in order to fund tax cuts for the better-off.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Statements — Parliamentary Labour Party Membership—Taito Phillip Field 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Statements — Parliamentary Labour Party Membership—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:637;Page:7319] 
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