edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brown Peter: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
Brown Peter: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
[Volume:643;Page:13087] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 It is not my intention to take a long call because the Minister in particular has outlined the details behind this issue which has become known as the Madeleine Setchell case. Let me say from the outset that Madeleine Setchell has committed no offence whatsoever in our view at all. She is totally innocent. She was upfront at the very beginning apparently and she behaved impeccably. I have no doubt that she offered the Minister at that particular time all the competencies she possessed. 
New Zealand First does not have the view at all that she is in any way in error. But having said that our general view is that we can understand why a Minister—particularly the one involved—would not want to employ somebody or see somebody engaged in his or her office who had a relationship with somebody in the office of the Leader of the Opposition. We can understand that. So the mistakes in our view are twofold. The first is around the employment of Madeleine Setchell. We believe that that could have and should have been handled a lot better. The second is the way in which she was dispensed with. That could have and should have been handled a lot better. 
There have been a lot of losers in this case. The Minister has resigned. He has lost his ministerial warrant and he is likely to lose his career as an MP. Madeleine Setchell herself lost her job. I have no doubt that it reflects very hard on her. New Zealand First would like to wish her well and in the fullness of time I am hopeful that she will put this whole thing behind her. 
Hugh Logan has been found wanting to put it in a nutshell. Apparently he is to lose his performance bonus which represents something like 15 percent of his salary. Dr Prebble the State Services Commissioner also feels as though he has let the side down. I believe he has intimated that if the Government were so inclined he would resign completely. I agree with the Minister David Parker that that would be unnecessary and unfair. But unquestionably Dr Prebble is feeling as though he has let the side down a little bit. The aim of the game must be for the Government and those who represent it who employ people to do it properly—to do it professionally fairly and in a reasonable manner. If they are to dispense with people they should equally do that reasonably fairly and compassionately. 
I do not think there is anything more that New Zealand First wants to add to this debate. We wish that the matter had not occurred but we are hopeful that the Government and the Public Service people— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What do you think about Dr Prebble? 
PETER BROWN 
: I have already addressed that issue. The member should stay awake from time to time. We think that this whole issue is a sorry state of affairs. We hope that the Government has learnt the lessons when it comes to employing people and more important dispensing with them.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
[Volume:643;Page:13080] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I accept that Mr Brownlee’s application does require the immediate attention of the House. I call upon the member to move that the House take note of a particular matter of urgent public importance.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Potential Terrorist Activity—Leaked Police Evidence 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Potential Terrorist Activity—Leaked Police Evidence 
[Volume:643;Page:13080] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the leaked release of evidence obtained by the police during their investigation into potential terrorism activity in New Zealand. Mr Mark has given no authenticating information with his letter. His application is therefore declined.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
[Volume:643;Page:13080] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Gerry Brownlee seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release today of the State Services Commissioner’s report on the investigation into the Public Service recruitment and employment of Madeleine Setchell. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and Mr Brownlee has provided the necessary authenticating material.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13079] 
11.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: What reports has she received on New Zealand’s performance regarding the gender gap relative to other countries? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 New Zealand has one of the smallest gender gaps in the world. We are now ranked fifth out of 128 countries in the 2007  
Global Gender Gap Report 
. That is up two places from seventh position last year. New Zealand performed stronger than other countries because of the level of women in the workforce and their level of income. 
Sue Moroney 
: What other reports has the Minister received about the benefits gained by women under Labour? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: New Zealand is ranked fifth in the  
Global Gender Gap Report 
 behind Sweden Norway Finland and Iceland. Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O’Reilly says our gender gap should be celebrated and he hails the report as an endorsement of New Zealand business and our way of life. This proves that Labour policies are making a difference for women with paid parental leave Working for Families and 20 free hours’ early childcare education. Although we are on the right track the gender pay gap is 12 percent and there is a lot more work to be done. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I seek leave to table the Business New Zealand press release on the small gender pay gap. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I seek leave to table the  
Global Gender Gap Report 
 which states we are fifth out of 128 countries. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13077] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold the question over until the Minister is able to answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13076] 
9.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How many families are benefiting from Working for Families? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 At the end of September of this year some 290000 New Zealand families were receiving Working for Families tax credits. It is predicted that by the end of the tax year 360000 families will benefit from the tax credits—that is three out of four New Zealand families with children. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What has been the impact of Working for Families on working families with children? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Working for Families makes it easier for New Zealand families to be in paid work and raise a family. It has increased family incomes. A couple earning $45000 a year with two young children is now $7000 a year better off. A couple earning $90000 with four children is over $6000 a year better off. It is making a real difference for real people like Sophie Read from Dunedin. She recently started her career following some time on the domestic purposes benefit. Working for Families has made her better off by more than $150 a week. Alongside other Labour-led Government initiatives such as paid parental leave free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds reduced doctors’ visit fees and reduced prescription charges Working for Families is enabling New Zealanders to make choices about working and caring that best meet their family needs. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What reports has the Minister seen regarding support for the Working for Families package? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have seen many supportive reports and I have also seen some conflicting reports. For example in November 2005 there was the declaration: “National members will be opposing this legislation with every bone in our bodies.”; then just 2 years later: “I like the fact that families get more because they face substantial costs. We have made it clear we are not planning to make changes to Working for Families that would make people worse off.” That is despite the fact that just 2 months earlier at the National Party conference the leader had said exactly the opposite. That report suggested cutting Working for Families with proposals that would lead to 60000 families completely losing their Working for Families support. They are all different statements from the leader of the National Party demonstrating his usual flip-flopping. Meanwhile our Government is getting on with the real business of providing real opportunities for New Zealand families to get ahead.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13069] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I call question No. 6 the Hon Bill English. I have called the Hon Bill English. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Wake up Bill. 
Hon Bill English 
: Trevor should ask for his money back. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is inappropriate as was the Minister’s comment.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13069] 
5.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: What is the Government doing to monitor the social responsibility of State-owned enterprises? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 The Labour-led Government recently formalised a framework for corporate social responsibility which will apply to all State-owned enterprises. State-owned enterprises will be monitored and measured against targets just like financial performance. Under this new framework each State-owned enterprise will be required to assess its impact on the society and environment in which it operates and to adopt specific corporate social responsibility programmes that are appropriate. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister aware of any State-owned enterprises that have already undertaken corporate social responsibility programmes? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. Many are currently going on. The Genesis Oncology Trust is one example; the million freepost envelopes distributed to community groups by New Zealand Post is another. Of course if the Tories had their way and hocked off the State-owned enterprises to their mates that would all finish.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:643;Page:13063] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) to be taken through its remaining stages on Tuesday 20 November and for the debates on the questions that the bill be now read a second and a third time to be taken together as a single debate of 12 10-minute speeches. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being taken? There is no objection.
Urgent Debates Declined — Potential Terrorist Activity—Leaked Police Evidence 
Urgent Debates Declined — Potential Terrorist Activity—Leaked Police Evidence 
[Volume:643;Page:13080] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Potential Terrorist Activity—Leaked Police Evidence 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the leaked release of evidence obtained by the police during their investigation into potential terrorism activity in New Zealand. Mr Mark has given no authenticating information with his letter. His application is therefore declined.
Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
Urgent Debates — Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
[Volume:643;Page:13080] 
Urgent Debates 
Setchell Inquiry—Report to State Services Commissioner 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Gerry Brownlee seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release today of the State Services Commissioner’s report on the investigation into the Public Service recruitment and employment of Madeleine Setchell. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and Mr Brownlee has provided the necessary authenticating material.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:643;Page:13063] 
Wednesday 14 November 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
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 the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) to be taken through its remaining stages on Tuesday 20 November and for the debates on the questions that the bill be now read a second and a third time to be taken together as a single debate of 12 10-minute speeches. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being taken? There is no objection.
Vote: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13061] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Simich Clem: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13060] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We now come to Part 2 clauses 10 to 63. There are six subparts therein.
Vote: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Human Tissue Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13059] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 155 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13051] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13051] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Education and Science Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Question agreed to.
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13030] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13015] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Building Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13015] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Question agreed to.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13002] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Bill read a third time.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13002] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Last week the Maori Party along with the Greens put an application to the Speaker in respect of attempting to have a discussion about the activities in the Tuhoe nation and indeed the country as an urgent debate topic for today and obviously it was turned down. I seek leave of the House to see whether it will allow one more speaker—namely myself—to speak to some of those issues bearing in mind that it was at 4.30 or so on Thursday of last week when the Solicitor-General’s statement was made and maybe other parties like ourselves have not had an opportunity to put those issues fully out on the table. So I seek leave to do that. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12993] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion not agreed to.
Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12993] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That Government order of the day No 1 for the interrupted debate on the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill be postponed until 1 April 2008.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Terrorism Suppression Act—Solicitor-General’s Decision 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Terrorism Suppression Act—Solicitor-General’s Decision 
[Volume:643;Page:12993] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Dr Pita Sharples seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision on Thursday by the Solicitor-General not to authorise prosecutions under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. I have also received a similar application from Keith Locke. Mr Locke has given no authenticating information with his letter. This in itself is sufficient ground to decline the application—see Speaker’s ruling 160/5. 
The announcement in question is a particular case of recent occurrence. However it is merely an announcement that prosecutions are not to be authorised. It does not contain any substantive policy changes or require the immediate attention of the House. The Solicitor-General has invited the Attorney-General to consider referring the Act to the Law Commission to consider whether it should be under review and this has now been done. Furthermore members took the opportunity to comment on the Solicitor-General’s decision during the debate on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill later on Thursday afternoon. The bill remains on the Order Paper. 
In these circumstances I am not persuaded that there should be a special debate on the subject today. It can be considered over a longer time frame than today. Both applications are therefore declined.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:12993] 
12.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he have confidence that no New Zealand Immigration Service staff have been involved in the alleged “cash for jobs” scam claimed to involve hundreds of students as well as employers and immigration staff? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Acting Minister of Immigration) 
: I am assured by the Department of Labour that it is fully investigating these allegations and will actively pursue anyone who is in breach of the Immigration Act. I await the outcome of that investigation. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How much confidence can the New Zealand public have in the Immigration Service investigating itself given that the department found 33 cases of improper behaviour just last year yet could not identify who was involved in at least 15 of those cases? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the vast majority of cases allegations against Immigration Service staff prove to be unfounded. Moreover the rate of substantiated claims against Immigration Service officers has dropped by nearly 50 percent in the last 2 years. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that no senior persons of the Immigration Service are involved in the scam given that the alleged mastermind Alex Ho names them by job title and just last year investigators found three cases of corruption as well as the 33 cases of improper behaviour within the Immigration Service? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Government very clearly has a policy of zero tolerance of any form of corruption in the Immigration Service but it follows that if one is holding an investigation one waits to see the evidence that emerges. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister simply clarify that last answer: if an Immigration Service official is involved in this “cash for jobs” scam will action be taken against him or her immediately and will he or she be dispensed with? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is important not to prejudge the outcome of the investigation but hypothetically speaking if an Immigration Service officer were to be seriously implicated in a matter of corruption it is a fair bet that he or she would soon be a former Immigration Service officer.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:12990] 
9.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What steps is the Government taking to implement its sustainability programme? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If there is any further interchange across the House the members indulging in it will all leave. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Prime Minister today announced the first four New Zealand regions to trial recycling facilities in public places. They will be Wellington the far north district Christchurch City and Kaikoura. The Government has allocated $4.6 million over 3 years to establish around 600 public recycling bins throughout New Zealand. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other initiatives does he consider will contribute to New Zealand becoming environmentally sustainable? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are six initiatives that the ministry is currently involved in to lead New Zealand towards greater sustainability. They are the household sustainability awareness campaign the Business Partnerships for Sustainability the work on enhanced eco-verification Sustainable Government Procurement Towards a Sustainable New Zealand: Carbon Neutral Public Service and Towards zero waste. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Government committed to the sustainability goal of moving towards zero waste; if so what initiatives and legislative changes does he support or propose? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member’s bill forms an important part of the Government’s goal of moving towards zero waste. We will be supporting it.
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:12988] 
7.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What Government initiatives are helping our young people to become better skilled and better placed to participate in our thriving economy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 So far 13838 young New Zealanders are undertaking or have completed already a Modern Apprenticeship. That is a remarkable turn-round from 10 years ago—10 years ago there were no Modern Apprenticeships. There were none; apprenticeships had been abolished by National—an act of arrant stupidity. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Will the Government meet the target of having 14000 Modern Apprentices by December 2008? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Clearly we will. We do not know when but it is probably going to be closer to December 2007 than to the target date. The Government does not mind exceeding its promises. We always meet them and sometimes we do even better than that.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:12980] 
2.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What progress can she report on meeting the current police recruitment target of 1000 extra sworn police by 30 June 2009? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to tell the House that we have now reached the 500 mark in recruiting the extra 1000 sworn police promised under a Labour-led Government’s confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First. We have reached this target on schedule despite a tight labour market and despite the continued attempts by the National Party to ridicule undermine and destabilise the recruitment campaign. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What other progress can she report on the recruitment campaign? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can report that the same National Party according to John Key now supports the campaign to add the 1000 additional police. Of course this is the “me too” party—the same party that was going to prune police officers by 500 when it was last in office. But hey it is good news: it has done another U-turn! It now does not need to have a police policy. All it needs to do is to copy ours and that is exactly what it is doing. 
Ron Mark 
: Has she seen any reports commenting on the agreement between New Zealand First and Labour not only to budget for police numbers to be increased to provide another 1000 police staff over the next three Budgets but to achieve ratios comparable with those in Australia by 2010; and if she cannot find any other reports supporting that proposal would she conclude as most New Zealanders do that the greatest risk to that policy being carried through is the election of a National Government that does not support it? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister can address the first part. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is absolutely right. The new-found commitment to 1000 extra police by the National Party is real johnny-come-lately stuff because it opposed this policy every step of the way until John Key had to front up to the Police Association. He had to have something to say so he grabbed Labour’s policy and turned it into his own. People are not fooled. They will remember the Martin report and National’s desire to cut 500 police out of the New Zealand Police service. That is what the public will remember.
Urgent Debates Declined — Terrorism Suppression Act—Solicitor-General’s Decision 
Urgent Debates Declined — Terrorism Suppression Act—Solicitor-General’s Decision 
[Volume:643;Page:12993] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Terrorism Suppression Act—Solicitor-General’s Decision 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Dr Pita Sharples seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision on Thursday by the Solicitor-General not to authorise prosecutions under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. I have also received a similar application from Keith Locke. Mr Locke has given no authenticating information with his letter. This in itself is sufficient ground to decline the application—see Speaker’s ruling 160/5. 
The announcement in question is a particular case of recent occurrence. However it is merely an announcement that prosecutions are not to be authorised. It does not contain any substantive policy changes or require the immediate attention of the House. The Solicitor-General has invited the Attorney-General to consider referring the Act to the Law Commission to consider whether it should be under review and this has now been done. Furthermore members took the opportunity to comment on the Solicitor-General’s decision during the debate on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill later on Thursday afternoon. The bill remains on the Order Paper. 
In these circumstances I am not persuaded that there should be a special debate on the subject today. It can be considered over a longer time frame than today. Both applications are therefore declined.
Chadwick Steve: Coroners Bill — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Coroners Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2677] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to take a very quick call on this bill. I think the Justice and Electoral Committee has done a wonderful job and got the bill back in a very balanced format. I used to work in a hospital in liaison with coroners undertakers and funeral directors on a daily basis and I drafted a member’s bill when I first came into Government in 2000. I would like to thank our Ministers of this Government who picked that up and turned it into a Government bill following on from the Law Commission report. 
This is a wonderful bill. It is needed. It is desperately needed by coroners around the country. They have been asking for support for the role of the office of the coroner and also for cultural supporters to walk beside them. Coroners in the past were not appointed but were asked to consider undertaking the role. My husband who was asked by Tuariki Delamere said: “Thank you but no thank you.” even when he knew that Maori people really needed Maori coroners. But at that time one used the resources of one’s own office entirely. One had no resources that went with the role of the coroner and no support whatsoever in terms of a network of coronial support. 
In this bill there is a chief coroner and cultural advisers to the office of the coroner and I think that that is the support coroners have been screaming out for as well as for well-resourced positions. This position does have financial implications and I am really thrilled that the Government has picked that point up. Around the country coroners have been waiting for this bill. At every coroner’s conference they have been asking the Minister when this bill would come in. 
I look forward to the next stage of this bill. One other issue that I think is very important is the reporting of the findings of death—not just suicide but the findings of death—and linking that in to death review teams around the country. By looking at coroners’ findings on those deaths we will certainly start to have an impact on suicide and unintended death in this country and that will help many people. 
Debate interrupted.
Pillay Lynne: Coroners Bill — Second Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Coroners Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2668] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I commend the Coroners Bill to the House. The Coroners Bill repeals and replaces the Coroners Act 1988. In doing so it enhances public confidence in the coronial system by improving the quality of coroners’ investigations and decision making thus taking better account of the diverse needs of families. The Law Commission became aware of concerns about coronial practice while consulting with Maori for its review of succession law and it wrote a separate report on the Act that was tabled in August 2000. 
The bill draws on both the Law Commission’s recommendations and the Government’s review. The key elements of the bill include establishing the office of the coroner—a chief coroner—moving to a smaller number of mostly full-time legally qualified coroners; ensuring families are notified and kept notified at significant steps of the coronial process; introducing a regime for retention and release of body parts and bodily samples; and enhancing the inquiry and inquest processes. 
 I thank the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee who I think generally put politics aside and worked to give careful consideration to this bill which was well-deserved. In saying that I just have to make a little comment on the previous speaker Dr Richard Worth who has become the advocate for the workers in this case. This is quite ironic when he belongs to a party that advocates sacking at will in the first 3 months of employment and slashing workers’ rights and entitlements. I also thank the staff and advisers on the select committee who worked so diligently to ensure that all the points made by submitters were addressed and carefully considered. I thank the submitters who submitted to the committee often in very painful circumstances. I want to say in the House how important this contribution was in the consideration of this bill. 
I thank the coroners who presented to the committee and also the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices of the Peace Associations. In doing that I give recognition to the service of coroners under the current system and also the JPs who have made a major contribution as relief coroners over many years. This bill in no way denigrates their contribution but recognises that a professional coronial system with a team of full-time coroners will build on the current system and provide resources and support for those who work in the system in any way and also for those who use the coronial system—including families and the public—who are often going through a period of intense grief. I am really proud to stand and commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2664] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2663] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2663] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to clause 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2659] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2659] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2659] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2658] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2658] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendments agreed to.
Donnelly Brian: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2656] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make a few comments. It is very interesting that a couple of impassioned speeches have been made by National members about kindergartens and the need to protect kindergartens and their iconic status. I ask members who it was who took kindergarten teachers out of the State Sector Act back in 1997. It seems to me that there is a bit of tension between what was done in 1997 and some of the statements that are coming out in the debate this evening. 
The only other thing I want to make a point about is the Student Loan Scheme Act because it is really the guts of this part. It refers to scholarships which is something I have a bit of personal pride in because it was a policy that I put through the coalition Government initially. The incoming Labour Government in 1999 saw there was merit in expanding it in terms of gaining additional teachers in various areas of particular need so I have a particular interest in that matter. 
 All that this measure does—as I think everybody in the Committee would agree—is to ensure that if somebody who gets a scholarship does not fulfil the requirements of it then the funds can be extracted back under the Student Loan Scheme Act in the same way as student loans. I think most people would agree that if somebody signs up to one of the scholarship schemes and fulfils all the requirements of it then that person should keep the dough. But if a person does not fulfil the requirements then surely he or she has a responsibility to refund the money to the State. This legislation provides a sure-fire mechanism for that to happen. I am sure that all members of the Committee would see that as the responsibility to the taxpayer referred to in clause 49. 
The rest of it is really just nuts and bolts stuff. I think the Hon Bill English was correct in saying that and I do not think it is worthwhile to spend a large amount of time debating this particular part. It would probably be better to spend that time traversing the whole tenor of the bill when we get to the title clause.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2655] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended 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. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2655] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments 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. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2654] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2654] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 24 in the name of Allan Peachey to Part 30 in clause 44 to insert new section 345A be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2654] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 24 in the name of Allan Peachey to section 344(2) in clause 44 be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2654] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 24 in the name of Allan Peachey to section 342 in clause 44 be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2653] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 29 in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to section 319 in clause 43 be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2653] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 29 in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to section 317 in clause 43 be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2653] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 317(2) in clause 43 to omit and substitute paragraph (b) be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2653] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; 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 Dr Pita Sharples to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 317(2) in clause 43 be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed new paragraph (b) the word “assess” and substitute the words “use in assessing”.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2652] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 317(1) in clause 43 to add new paragraph (c) be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2652] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; 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 Dr Pita Sharples to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 317(1) in clause 43 be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed new paragraph (c) the word “issuing” and substitute the words “authorising the secretary to issue”.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2652] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 317(1) in clause 43 to omit and substitute words be agreed to.