edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:677;Page:398] 
2. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What evidence has he seen of businesses having the confidence to invest in large capital projects in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I have seen three examples in just the last few weeks of businesses confidently expanding their operations in this country to the benefit of New Zealanders. Last month Methanex announced it would increase methanol production in Taranaki requiring a combined capital investment with Todd Energy of up to $860 million over 10 years and creating up to 500 construction and gasfield jobs. In the Hawke’s Bay Heinz is returning the manufacture of the iconic Wattie’s tomato sauce from Australia to New Zealand and increasing production in its Hastings plant by 30000 tonnes per year or about 10 percent. And just this morning I attended the construction start of a new $70-million gas plant to supply New Zealand Steel that will create 120 jobs over the next 2 years. 
Todd McClay 
: What are these and other companies saying about the Government’s role in their investments? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: These investments underscore what I hear personally from businesses like Methanex and New Zealand Steel. They value a Government that provides an internationally competitive regulatory environment giving them the confidence to invest significant amounts in new capital projects in this country. It reinforces the Government’s focus on providing a strong platform for competitive productive New Zealand - based businesses to trade and succeed in the world today. 
Todd McClay 
: What policies would deter business investment like this? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The policies would be the reverse of course: ones that do not create or actually worsen the competitive nature of the regulatory environment—for example introducing new taxes on productive capital like businesses and farms. A more expensive emissions trading scheme would be another example of that; a return to 1970s-style labour relations would perhaps be another example—and introducing regional fuel taxes. That is to name just a few. All those examples would put a handbrake on the sort of business growth that we have seen today and are policies advocated by the members opposite.
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Volume:677;Page:408] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The triggering factor that makes it urgent is certainly the decision of the High Court but it was a decision of the High Court to overturn a ministerial decision. What this does is undo a ministerial decision and leave a void where that decision was. Now if I were you I might turn it down on the fact that there is an Address in Reply debate going on and there is possibly an ability to deal with it there or on the fact that it can be the subject of a later debate but I am pretty sure that if we go back through some of the precedents we will see it is not the timing around the original decision; it is when it comes to light and becomes urgent. And that I understand happened at some stage this morning but was then reported. The other— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Can I make one other point? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That point is as Mr Parker has just pointed out to me that unless another amendment is moved—and it would be an interesting confidence amendment—he cannot speak on it because of course he spoke yesterday in the Address in Reply debate as have some others.
Tolley Anne: Address in Reply 
Tolley Anne: Address in Reply 
[Volume:677;Page:421] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is this on this point? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is on this point. It is pursuant to this and I am not arguing with your ruling. A second point of that new Standing Order then goes on to say that no member other than the Speaker may interrupt a member who is speaking to suggest a breach of this convention and that is something that clearly has been broken. It is your discretion and I would just hate to see that there is a precedent set in this House whereby we start down this track as we have taken action on it.
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:478] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to invite the senior Government whip to withdraw that motion in the interests of getting leave in the future to take parts together. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member can make that request. It is not a point of order and that is the sort of discussion that should not be made as a point of order but in direct dialogue with the member concerned.
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:479] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have reached the time when you must report. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No. On a closure motion one completes the voting. I call Maurice Williamson.
Norman Russel: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
Norman Russel: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Volume:677;Page:409] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Just very briefly I would argue that rather than looking backwards as the members over here have suggested it is actually a question of ministerial responsibility. What the courts have said is that the Ministers must redo the decision. That is the ministerial responsibility. That is the specific language that is used in the Standing Orders. There is now ministerial responsibility to reconsider the decision; that is what the courts have directed them to do.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Volume:677;Page:408] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the honourable Leader of the House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think that if you were to accept that argument from Mr Mallard there would be numerous occasions where ministerial decisions are revisited one way or another—perhaps sometimes many many years after the event first occurred. So I think you are quite right in saying that the provisions for an urgent debate in this House are for occasions when a Minister makes a decision that has very significant public interest and where there has been no other occasion for the House to discuss the matter. 
Now this matter has been the matter of questions in the House. It has been the matter of various bits of speculation in speeches in the Address in Reply debate and of course as Mr Mallard points out we are still in the Address in Reply debate. So I think you are quite correct in maintaining the long-held view or precedent that is reflected in the Standing Orders that says it has to be a recent decision by the Government—by a Minister effectively—on which there has been no other opportunity or there is not likely to be any other opportunity for debate. Further I would point out that although you are saying you do not have to have the application in by that time the Standing Order does say 1 hour before the House commences and this decision technically was available within that time space. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Point of order—
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:478] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave to have the questions taken separately. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought to have the questions taken separately. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? Leave is opposed.
Tisch Lindsay: Address in Reply 
Tisch Lindsay: Address in Reply 
[Volume:677;Page:421] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well I cannot; I am not a lawyer either. We need to get some advice on that. Can you just wait while I just ask the Clerk for some advice on that matter. 
 The practice was part of the Standing Orders review. In the report it says that it is a convention that speeches should not be read. This was adopted by the House and I mentioned that earlier on. There is no specific Standing Order I think that is a point for the member—there is no Standing Order. But when the House adopted the report of the Standing Orders Committee which talks about speeches being read what it does is re-enforces the convention or the practice that speeches will not be read in the future. So that is the position that this House adopted in this report and that is what is going to be the convention which is going to be the protocol as it were from here on in. It does of course allow for some flexibility. I mentioned when we discussed this earlier on on a point of order that there will be Ministers who maybe can read a speech on a bill in their name. It could be and I mentioned this also specifically that new members making their maiden statements will be able to read their speeches. There could well be some technical aspects within a bill that require some explanation and that it would be desirable that the person or the Minister actually read. I hope that clarifies the position. It is a convention. We want to move back to an accepted practice that speeches in future will not be read.
Tisch Lindsay: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:479] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member. I will just reiterate what I said to start with and that was that it was agreed by leave that all parts and clauses would be taken as one question—we agreed on that—and the vote was put on that. The question that arises is when the Minister then had to divide the bill. At that stage if I am hearing what you are saying you think that is outside the ambit of the original intention—that is as you see it. Well the convention has always been that when you have a bill that needs to be divided it immediately follows the vote—it immediately follows the vote. That was as I understand it from the Chairperson exactly what happened. So if we were to take this in sequence the vote was put the Minister immediately then came forward and moved the motion about dividing the bill and that is the proper thing to do as that is the sequence it follows. The question that then arises however is once that is done it actually could be regarded as a debatable motion and I think that is the area with a question mark at this stage. I am just going to seek some further advice.  
The convention is and I will just reiterate the point that I have made that immediately following the vote where a dividing of the bill were to follow it is a debatable motion as I mentioned earlier on. Although that has been a convention by concluding the debate now it actually stops members from participating in a further debate. So my ruling is that we have to move back into Committee and the Chairperson must report progress.
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:677;Page:403] 
6. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has she received about early childhood education enrolments in 2011? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Tena koe. I am pleased to inform the House that I have received the latest official figures which show that early childhood education enrolment rates were up 3 percent in 2011 when compared with 2010. The figures also show that the number of children who start school having attended early childhood education is also moving in the right direction reaching 94.7 percent in 2011. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What is her target for early childhood education participation? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: This Government understands that quality early childhood education is hugely beneficial. This is why we have a target of 98 percent participation by 2015. We are working to ensure that all kids are enrolling. We are investing $91.8 million to increase participation in communities of low enrolment such as in South Auckland and we are also spending record amounts on early childhood education—$1.5 billion in the last Budget.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Address in Reply 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Address in Reply 
[Volume:677;Page:421] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch not to trivialise your response but can I just check with you though the issue about—not being a lawyer—the difference between a convention and a rule as set out by the Standing Orders. I ask that seriously because I understand the desire of the House at that time and in the discussions to have open free debate and I have got no problem with that. But the inference that Mr Mallard gave—I thought; that I took from the discussion—was that it was required a set rule a Standing Order and I am trying to make the point that that was not the case. But if you could define “convention” that would be helpful.
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:478] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This has been taken as one question by leave rather than in three parts. The understanding when that happens is that if there is ever going to be leave for it again we are not going to be cut off by a closure motion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have listened to the member. That is not a point of order. If the member disagrees with the closure he should vote against it.
Calder Cam: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Calder Cam: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:468] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and take a brief call on this bill the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The name is encased in the title very well. I am particularly interested in the way in which this bill helps us combat the ravages of P. In our last term our Government made it very clear that we were not prepared to stand by and see families young people and in fact all strata of society affected by this appalling drug. We are pushing back in terms of the harm done by the abuse of alcohol. The Alcohol Reform Bill is the first push-back in 30 years of progressive liberalisation of the alcohol laws.  
But the Prime Minister announced the war against P on three fronts and these fronts are reducing the availability of the precursors of P in our domestic market giving the police more tools and more manpower to deal with the illegal P labs and of course closing the door to the raw materials coming into our country. This is where this bill is so important.  
The schemes of the drug lords are fiendishly clever. We have all heard—and I remind you if you have not heard—of a shipment of kitchen granite brought in from an Asian port. Right in the midst of these slabs of granite which were hollowed out were kilos and kilos of the precursor to methamphetamine. It was only the good work the surveillance and tracing by the Customs Service and the sharing of information—and in the Budget in 2010 the Government put in almost $6 million to improve the way the Customs Service can surveil and trace potential drug shipments—that allowed this to be intercepted. The information sharing between agencies can only help this. The production of 169 kilos of methamphetamine was stymied by the interception of the precursors for this foul drug.  
This bill is an excellent bill. It will increase communication among our agencies. I commend this bill to the Committee.
Tisch Lindsay: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:479] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. I am going to seek some advice on this. My understanding is that it has been agreed by leave that the bill be taken as one question. With that in mind when the vote starts it is also to be— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can I interrupt? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard.
National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:677;Page:448] 
National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 14 February. 
Bill read a third time. 
Hon JOHN BANKS (ACT—Epsom) 
: 
 I seek leave to cast a vote against the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill which came through at about 90 miles an hour and I did not hear it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well no—the opportunity was there and it is up to the member to— 
Hon John Banks 
: But I am seeking leave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have already done that. It is too late because I have announced the result. We have actually voted on it and we now move to the next section which is moving into Committee stage. I say sorry to the member but the member must exercise his right to vote at the time or bring up a point of order at the time not after. The House has decided we have passed that and we are now moving into Committee.
Upston Louise: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Upston Louise: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:449] 
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for all parts and clauses to be taken as one question for the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.
Cunliffe David: Address in Reply 
Cunliffe David: Address in Reply 
[Volume:677;Page:417] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Drawing upon Speakers’ rulings 38/2-3 I note that a member claiming to be misrepresented might seek an opportunity to explain that. The member who has just resumed his seat claimed that the economic development action plan of the Government contained numerous fiscal targets including a return to surplus. When I attempted to table— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: What is the point of order? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The point is that it does not. It contains no targets whatsoever. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: What is the member—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: This is a separate point of order. A separate point is coming up. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: What is the point of order? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The first point of order is to explain that misrepresentation because this is not a fiscal plan— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! That is a debating point. If the member wishes to seek leave to table a document he should do so. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table the Government’s economic development action plan which contains no fiscal targets no— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is all you need to do; that is all you need to do. Order! Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:479] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think the Chairman has summarised it absolutely clearly. It is a very simple question and that is when a closure motion has been called for and passed on the preliminary clauses and the parts of the bill—voted on; that has been completed—obviously the Committee moves immediately as its next item to the Minister moving a motion. We had at that stage passed the time for the reporting and therefore it is my submission that that is a motion for the next sitting day.
Macindoe Tim: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Macindoe Tim: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:466] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I will take a very short call. In fact I was going to thank the member for Mana who I have just discovered is Labour’s new customs spokesman for his comments—his supportive comments initially—and in particular for his acknowledgment of the work the Minister has done in order to take things on board.  
I have to say that latterly in his speech I think the member moved well away from the actual focus of the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill so I would like just to come back to that and to reiterate a point that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Customs has made and that is that planned information-sharing is logical. It is cost-effective. It is efficient and most important it is increasingly vital for our customs officers in order for them to be able to operate successfully in the very important work that they do. There is no question that their role is a demanding one. They have to be vigilant all the time. What they do matters hugely to New Zealand.  
This bill recognises the technological advances such as SmartGate which the Minister and Mr Faafoi have both referred to. Our Joint Border Management System has greatly increased the speed and the ease of travel and that is great for all of us who travel internationally but of course it puts extra responsibilities on to those customs staff and others who monitor and control our borders. This bill not only moves with the times; it gives them the tools they need to do the job. It is something that I believe is warmly welcomed in the House. I commend the Minister for the work that he has done and I commend the bill to the Committee.
Hipkins Chris: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:739] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a brief call to set the record straight with regard to the concerns that Mr Henare has raised about this piece of legislation the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. I was indeed approached by the Deputy Leader of the House today to ask whether in fact we could reach some accommodation to correct for Mr Henare’s total incompetence in shepherding his own bill through the House. I indicated I would look at it and get back to the Government. I got back to the Government whip and said no actually sorry they were just going to have to wear it.  
The fact that Mr Henare was too incompetent to move the amendments that were required to this bill at the appropriate moment is not something that this Opposition is responsible for. In fact it is something the Government is responsible for and it is going to have to wear that. Perhaps if Mr Henare had paid a little bit more attention and given a little bit less bluster when he was producing the earlier stages of this bill the Government might not be in this predicament.  
The amendment being put forward by my colleague Darien Fenton is a very sensible one. What it does is it still ensures that the option of a secret ballot is there if the workers want to have a secret ballot but it prevents an employer going to court and overturning the decision to hold a strike on the basis that it was not a secret ballot. I think that that would be wrong.  
The workers the people who go on strike could have very legitimately voted in favour of going on strike and the employer could have that overturned—they could go to court about it—on the basis that it was not a secret ballot. I think what Darien Fenton is doing is actually giving effect to the intention of what Mr Henare says he wants which is to give workers the choice of having a secret ballot. This the amendment being put forward by my colleague Darien Fenton does that.  
Then again I would not necessarily expect Mr Henare to adopt an amendment that made sense given the approach that he has taken so far to this bill. He has totally hashed it up and as a result we are going to have to come back and look at it again so no doubt we will be able to debate it when we go back to the beginning and look at it all again.
Henare Tau: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:738] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to raise a point of order and it is about the House as a whole—the order of the House. Some time today my Acting Leader of the House approached the Labour Party whip— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! No that is not a point of order. Whatever has transpired between the whips of the parties and any agreement is between them. Leave was sought I put the question leave was declined and that is the end of the matter.
Vote: Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
Vote: Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:738] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the House take note of the interim report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Wagner Nicky: Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:736] 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 As the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee I rise to speak to this interim report on the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. As you have heard from the Hon Annette King the local bill was sponsored by Ross Robertson and its purpose was to authorise the Manukau City Council to make bylaws prohibiting the business of prostitution or commercial sexual services in specified public places in Manukau City. It was referred to us but while we were dealing with the bill the Manukau City Council was disestablished and the Auckland Council has now taken over that bill. 
I just would like to make a little comment about the amendment that the Auckland Council has put forward. It is amendment 194 and it just makes a couple of very simple amendments. It omits the name “Manukau City Council” and replaces it with “Auckland Council” both in the title of the bill and in the definition of “district”. As the Hon Annette King said the Auckland Council has notified the public. It has notified the public through the newspapers through writing to members of Parliament and interested parties and by putting a public viewing of the amendment in the courts and in the libraries and council service centres. The new Local Government and Environment Committee which sat on 21 December agreed to ask for more submissions on the amendment and the bill to make sure that everybody had been consulted and those submissions close today. So far we have received 210 submissions mostly from the Auckland area with 51 people wanting to appear before the committee.  
I would just like to note that since the opening of submissions there has been a lot of interest in this bill and other councils in areas across New Zealand have expressed a desire to have similar legislation in their areas. The Local Government and Environment Committee is looking forward to working on the Auckland Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill and we expect to be hearing submissions in Auckland in the near future. Thank you.
King Annette: Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
King Annette: Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:735] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai)  
on behalf of  
H V Ross Robertson (Labour—Manukau East) 
: I move  
That the House take note of the interim report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill 
. 
An interim report you may well ask? The Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 8 September 2010. It is now 29 February 2012. So what is this “interim” report all about? Well this local bill sponsored by Ross Robertson as I have just said first originated from George Hawkins some time ago. Mr Robertson took over the bill. It went to the select committee. It has been at the select committee but very little has happened except in the meantime the Manukau City Council has gone out of existence. It has now been taken over by the Auckland Council. So the Manukau City Council does not now exist. 
What did it want to do? The Manukau City Council wanted to be able to make bylaws prohibiting the business of prostitution or commercial sexual services in specified public places in Manukau City. As that city council no longer exists what was going to happen? The committee received a submission from the Auckland Council the new super-city council advising our committee that it intended to replace the Manukau City Council as the bill’s promoter. The Auckland Council notified us that it was going to provide amendments to make it now the promoter of this bill. It also wanted to change the definition of “district” within the bill. It notified the public of these proposed amendments and on 5 September 2011 the council sent its amendments to the committee for consideration. At the meeting just before Christmas it was agreed to consider those amendments to the original bill because the amendments proposed by the council could apply to a much wider area than had previously been governed by the Manukau City Council and therefore they affected many many more people than the original bill did. It was decided by the committee that further submissions would then be called on the bill and on the amendments. 
So what is this report all about? It is to tell you just that. That is what the committee is going to do. We make no comment on what might come from those submissions but the committee will now look at the further submissions and look closely at the council’s amendments.
Mallard Trevor: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:677;Page:734] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to thank the vast majority of speakers in the House. Jami-Lee Ross made a fairly appalling speech towards the end which showed a lack of preparation. I am used to making speeches with a lack of preparation and I think I can do better. I think after a few years that member might do better as well. There was another member from the Canterbury area one of the bottle blondes—but I cannot remember which one; was it Dean?—who also showed a lack of preparation. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Hon Trevor Mallard took a point of order about 10 minutes ago complaining that the speech given by another member in the House was taking rather a personal turn and now he is doing exactly what he complained about. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Firstly members cannot refer to past points of order. I think the point of order though is valid. The debate has been in good humour and the member referred to some cosmetic attachments in relation to members of the House and it really did I think demean the member’s speech. Could he come back to the bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Of course Mr Deputy Speaker. I am one of those members who would love to be in a position to be able to use the stuff.  
I do want to thank most members of the House for their contributions. I am sure that this bill will get a good hearing at the select committee. I look forward to hearing from people with views on graffiti from a variety of angles and getting people in there like the Law Society to make sure that we have not got any legal hiccups in it. I think it is a contribution and one that I hope if it works is something that the Government might think about picking up to work more widely. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.
Dean Jacqui: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — First Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:677;Page:729] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I think it is excellent that we will have Green Party representation on the Local Government and Environment Committee for the consideration of the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. I think the Green Party is going to be particularly helpful when it comes time for the committee to discuss and clearly define what it is that we mean by “graffiti”. It was the previous speaker— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: It’ll have to be broad. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well you see that is the thing that this committee with the assistance of the Green members is going to be able to help us with. What is graffiti? Is graffiti painting? Yes I think it is. Is graffiti crayon? Is it spray-paint? Is it brush strokes? Is it— 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: It might be stickers too—stickers. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Is it stickers? Is graffiti stickers? Well you know I am very grateful that we have got the Green Party to assist us with this because I know that the Green Party has some experience with stickers as graffiti. The Green Party may not acknowledge that stickers are a form of graffiti but I can tell you that during the pre-election period I had some experience with stickers on my billboards—my billboards not any other party’s billboards. I rang up the Green Party chief of staff and I said “I have got a problem.” Do you know what? They are such fantastic people that that chief of staff of the Greens dispatched someone and do you know what? The next day the stickers were all gone. So the Green Party is an excellent party and I certainly look forward to— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Have you got a Green movement in your electorate? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: It is not a very fast movement. But the Green Party is very good at removing stickers.  
This bill is kind of interesting because there are some things that we also need to as my colleague said tease out in the select committee and that is the provision of 10 days’ notice before the local authority can go on to the property. I do wonder about that and I am interested in the view of the sponsoring member Trevor Mallard on that because it seems to me from the debate I have heard this evening that the sooner you can remove graffiti the more effective it is as a deterrent. Did I hear somebody in the House saying tonight that the Hutt City Council now has a 72-hour turn-round target for graffiti? If that is the case and if that is known why is this bill talking about 10 days’ notice? It just does not seem to be a very good fit to me so I am very interested to hear that. 
We will support this bill to go to the select committee but I wonder whether it is using a sledgehammer to squash a flea. People generally are pretty house-proud of private property are they not? I think we need to have a really good look at the provisions in this bill and at how heavy-handed this bill is but certainly we are prepared to support this bill to go to the select committee.
Mallard Trevor: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:677;Page:725] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think it is fair to say that it was a rather long introduction to get to that point and I apologise to the House for keeping the member waiting. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The point of order is of course correct. The member has apologised I think. The key ingredient was that it was done so I think we will just accept the apology and move on.
Mallard Trevor: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:677;Page:721] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to make just a very brief speech on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill to congratulate the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee and say that unlike our former Minister of Tourism I have been lucky enough to go to Stewart Island I think three or four times. The second time was a rather unfortunate visit before the 1999 election with a meeting at the school during the morning tea break which got slightly extended. I made myself very helpful. There it costs $100 to get the photocopier over to Invercargill to get it repaired. I agreed to take it as part of my baggage but just as we were putting it together a kid fell off the jungle gym—compound fracture of the arm awful stuff sticking out. When you are over there there is no doctor of course; they have got to ring over and get the local nurse to do the morphine injection. So I took both a kid and a photocopier back to Invercargill on the plane with me. So not all my memories of Stewart Island are good. The two subsequent— 
Jacqui Dean 
: What a guy! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Actually I felt somewhat guilty. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What a guy! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no. The play break had been extended and the kid fell off the jungle gym during the extension so I felt guilty—that might be the right way of putting it. But it is a—[ 
Interruption 
] Hallelujah to you too Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just narrow the debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: You look more like Graeme Lee every day. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon David Carter 
: Apologise. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do apologise; that is a most inappropriate thing to say to you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did not take any offence. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is a well-drafted bill. It is clearly a useful precedent at least for the Chatham Islands and I think we should get on with it.
Little Andrew: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Little Andrew: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:740] 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to stand here and explain why the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill should not proceed any further. This bill is typical National Party. What it tells us is that the National Party does not trust workers. It has never liked freedom. It has never liked freedom of association. It has never like freedom of choice. The great free-enterprise party the National Party hates it when working people think for themselves exercise their voluntary choice to belong to a union and challenge management—exercise their own rights stand up for themselves and do what anybody in a workplace sometimes does and actually find that management does not know everything. Every now and again workers find that they have to stand up for themselves and challenge what managers want to do. This bill is about trying to undermine the choice of those workers who have exercised their freedom of choice to belong to a union—about trying to prevent them from exercising the fullness of that choice. This National Party does not like workers making their own decisions. 
This bill is about seeing unions as different from union members and seeing union members as something different from their unions. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What are you reading it for? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: But unions are their members and union members are the union. That is the big difference. It is different from the Clerical Workers Union in 1991; it is different from the days— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member; the time has come for me to report progress. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Twyford Phil: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Twyford Phil: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:677;Page:703] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I have always wanted to attend a session of the “Young Nationals Toastmasters workshop” and that is what it has felt like this afternoon. It is an experience I always wanted to have and it is fantastic to be here and to share in this learning moment for the National backbench.  
It is a sorry moment; today we are going to see the back of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It is like saying goodbye to an old friend. It has been part of our life for a long long time and so many Wednesday afternoons have been whiled away as we listened to the warbling of our colleagues on this bill. I am pleased to say that Labour supports the third reading and the passage of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. 
Bill read a third time.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:677;Page:700] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I rise to give my support to the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and to note the bizarre contributions from the National members who now seem to be filibustering it. We have quite some interest in getting it moving along now so all I would like to do is note my great support for this piece of legislation.
Martin Tracey: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Martin Tracey: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:677;Page:697] 
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in favour of this bill. I would like to acknowledge that due to circumstances beyond our control this is the first time we have had an opportunity to speak on this bill. New Zealand First would like to take this opportunity to recognise the work done by the previous members of the Education and Science Committee and to make particular mention of the previous chair of that committee the late Allan Peachey. I do note however that while I mention that we have been absent for the progress of this bill up to this point as I listen here today I am somewhat glad for small mercies.  
The Royal Society of New Zealand has had a proud history of encouraging promoting and recognising excellence in the areas of science and technology and it is with pleasure that we support a bill that expands the society’s objectives to include the advancement and promotion of the humanities in New Zealand society. I also note that the society has a role in advising the Government from time to time. The New Zealand First Party welcomes anybody who can advise the Government on how to be more human.  
I believe that it is also worthy of note that this bill began its life outside of Parliament and was brought here after a full and robust internal consultation process by the society itself and with the overwhelming majority support of the society’s fellows—I see no problem at all with the word “fellows”. Hence I would assume the relative speed by which the select committee has been able to address these amendments and it is not the intention of New Zealand First I would wish to assure the society and my colleagues to impede its progress any further.  
New Zealand First does wish to use this opportunity to recognise previous comments made in this House about the visionary way that the Royal Society sees economic potential for New Zealand through the bringing together of the best of our talent and the best of our brains once this bill is enacted. I would like to close by quoting Mr Garth Carnaby the president of the Royal Society of New Zealand: “For the first time there will be an organisation in New Zealand that promotes excellence in research and scholarship across all disciplines and all areas of knowledge.” New Zealand First supports this bill.
Henare Tau: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:738] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee to reconsider clause 2 to replace the reference in subclause (1AA) to clause 6A with a reference to clause 4A. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
[Volume:677;Page:674] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the honourable Minister I just want to mention to the House that the Standing Orders have been amended to discourage the reading of speeches. I did not interrupt the honourable member for essentially reading a speech to the House because this is the first general debate but general debates—of all debates—should not necessitate members to read speeches unless it is something particularly technical that a member wishes to be covering. That was not a particularly technical speech because the member was present at the occasion she was talking about. I did not out of courtesy interrupt the member but I will in the future because I want to hear debate in this House not speeches read in this House especially in the general debate.