edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Henare Tau: General Debate 
Henare Tau: General Debate 
[Volume:628;Page:630] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to start by quoting the right honourable gentleman who has just resumed his seat who is now our Minister of Foreign Affairs. He backs up what he says. He said in Rotorua that he would not take the baubles of power. Oh yes we all believe Mr Peters! [ 
Interruption 
] He says: “Look who’s talking!”. Well at least we stuck around. 
At least we carried out every little bit of the contract we had with the then National Government. We did not get peed off because a change of leadership brought a woman into power. Mr Peters spat the dummy because he did not like working under women. He did not like working under a very very strong Prime Minister Jenny Shipley and just as we have seen in the House today he spat the dummy. 
Mr Peters spent 5 minutes having a go at our free democratic press. We may not agree with them but we should defend their right to report on things and they have done a wonderful job pointing out the scurrilous behaviour that that Minister has been up to. 
I turn now to David Benson-Pope and to Phil Goff’s comments about the party of self-abuse. I would rather be a self-abuser than use my position as a teacher to abuse a young person by forcing a tennis ball into the mouth of a young person who could not defend himself. Shame on that Minister! But he also went on to talk about it. He is one of the 19 people who cannot remember but he denies it ever happened. How the hell can he deny something ever happening when he cannot remember it ever happening? 
It has to be one the funniest things that one of the speakers today was Lianne Dalziel. I wonder how she feels about being sacked for lying. She lied and she got the sack. She took her punishment. But now another Minister has done basically the same thing and purely and simply because of a quirk of the Standing Orders the House or the Speaker cannot nail him even though every member of this House knows damn well that he should be gone. 
In the words of Trevor Mallard David Benson-Pope should go from this House. I remember that is what Mr Mallard said about somebody who paid for a pair of underpants. Well goodness gracious me the underpants are on the other backside now. David Benson-Pope should leave this House. He should go because he is the abuser. Every time there is a Cabinet meeting or a caucus meeting every one of those Labour members will be sitting with and be an accomplice of an abuser and everybody knows it. 
But something that really rankles with me is that in the “Peters-Clark” Government we have seen those New Zealand First members whom I actually thought had a bit of integrity—I always thought that the principles of Zealand First had a bit of integrity— 
Darren Hughes 
: Why did you walk out then? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Because it became the party of self-interest and now in 2005 it has turned out to be the party of baubles. There is even a new game coming out prior to Christmas called “Pocket Baubles”. That is all they have.
Locke Keith: General Debate 
Locke Keith: General Debate 
[Volume:628;Page:630] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a point of misrepresentation. Mr Peters just said then that there was some jack-up in relation to the Green MP in Europe he referred to. There is no Green MP here who even knew that this discussion was taking place at the European Parliament. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no— 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Mr Peters should actually read the papers to find out the situation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Mr Locke you were able to get that point away but it was not a point of order.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:623] 
12.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What changes have recently been made to the paid parental leave scheme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 As one of a list of family-friendly moves by this Government the successful paid parental leave scheme has been extended to 14 weeks from 1 December. This latest extension follows on from the December 2004 increase in entitlement from 12 to 13 weeks. 
Sue Moroney 
: Are further changes being planned to the paid parental leave scheme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As a matter of fact yes. Further extensions to the scheme are planned with a bill referred to the select committee last evening to extend paid parental leave to self-employed people. The bill reflects this Government’s strong commitment to support working families. Well over 2000 self-employed people each year are expected to benefit from the move.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:616] 
10. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: In what ways is the Government supporting a greater role for nurses in health care? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 New regulations mean that from tomorrow qualified nurse practitioners will be able to prescribe a range of new medications. This move not only encourages the professional development of the nursing sector but is also a key part of the Government’s work to provide timely flexible high-quality health-care for all New Zealanders. 
Darien Fenton 
: What would a nurse have to do to qualify to prescribe medication? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Quite a lot. Apart from the 3-year undergraduate degree that nurses must undertake they then also should undertake a 2-year masters degree in the scope of practice for which prescribing rights are sought followed by several years of clinical practice. Some non-doctor professionals such as midwives already prescribe. There is only one prescribing nurse in New Zealand at the moment but about 100 nurses are now preparing to apply when the regulations change tomorrow. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is he concerned that by July of next year most full-time primary health-care nurses will earn around $160 less than district health board nurses for a 40-hour week and what specific steps is he taking to bring about pay parity for those primary health-care nurses who are paid through the public health system so that there is not a mass walk-out of primary health-care nurses next year? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: We are not taking any specific steps because we are not the employers. However the member will be aware that this Government has a very high commitment to primary health-care and that commitment has been matched by substantial funding increases in recent years.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:615] 
9.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Are immigration representations made by members of Parliament given priority over other immigration applications? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Immigration representations are not applications. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why when answering a question in this House on 16 November in respect of some of the 438 immigration appeals made in the past 3 years by the honourable Taito Phillip Field did the Minister tell the House that I had made “In the realm of 80 in the last 3 years.”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member must have ESP because that was precisely the point I was attempting to clarify for the House in my point of order. In fact the member made only 21 representations during that 3-year period and I take this opportunity to apologise to the member for overstating his hard work. 
Jill Pettis 
: How many representations were made to the Minister of Immigration in the last financial year and how many standard immigration applications were made in the same period? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In 2004-05 around 4000 ministerial representations were received with approximately one-fifth originating from members of Parliament. In the same year over 400000 immigration applications were made to the Department of Labour. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that his own department had established on 19 October—not long before that Minister answered the question in this House—that I had in fact made 21 immigration appeals in the last 3 years and why did he choose to give this House an erroneous figure almost four times higher than the correct figure? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Quite simply because I made an error. I have previously apologised to the member for overstating his efforts. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that on 16 November he also told the House that I had “put a higher number of cases before the Minister than most members of this House have done.” and did he simply make up the figure of “80 in the last 3 years” in an attempt to support a false statement; if not where did the figure of 80 come from? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I have already clarified that figure was an error and the member is now quite correct. He did not in fact make more representations than a majority of members. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does this set the standard we can expect from this Minister of Immigration—that if he wants to score a political point he is prepared to just pluck out of the air any figures that might happen to suit his political purpose? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:615] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 It is because quite simply the error was not detected until the processing of an answer to a parliamentary question today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The normal course of action is that as soon as one becomes aware of that one should take the earliest opportunity to explain. That should in fact have been taken at the beginning of question time as was indicated. It was not but leave was sought. Leave has been denied. The member can now approach the Speaker in writing to explain what has happened—that is what has happened in the past—to determine whether there has in fact been any breach of privilege.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:615] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 This is a very important point. The rule exists that a Minister is required to make a correction at the earliest possible time— [ 
Interruption 
]—because we actually want to have correct answers in this House. What appears to be the case here is that the Minister has bothered to make a correction only because he is getting a subsequent question and that is entirely out of order—and indeed I suspect a potential breach of privilege—because Ministers do not come down and correct their answers when they are caught; they come down and correct their answers as soon as they become aware of the need to do so. The easy course of action for the Minister is to do this—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Peters has interrupted three times. Madam Speaker it is very hard to give a point of order when Mr Peters is sitting on the cross benches chipping away three or four times. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree with you and I would have to ask that member to leave the Chamber. There have been so many warnings. I know that this will deny some people an opportunity because he does have a question to him on the Order Paper but as members have raised the matter I have to ask the member to leave. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to return to answer my question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I seek leave to return to answer my question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have asked the member—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry but Mr Brownlee will be joining him very shortly! As I said there will be very few of us left at the rate we are going. I have warned this House on several occasions yesterday and today that constant chipping in is not acceptable. I let chatter go as long as it is not too loud but that chipping in via interjections is unacceptable. I am asking the member to leave. He has sought leave to come back for his question. Is there any objection to that? No. The member will please now go and return for his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The easy way forward for the Minister is in seeking leave to explain why today is the earliest possible opportunity for him to correct the answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank Mr Hide. That is the obvious point.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:614] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Madam Speaker that is not a matter for you to consider at all in this because this is about a Minister who after considering a question on notice comes to the House 4 hours after he got the question makes a mistake in the answer then apparently does not find out about it until quite some number of days later—10 or 12 days later—then comes to the House at 2 o’clock knowing that the mistake has been made but waits until his question comes up on the sheet to correct it. The correction should have been made right at the start. The courteous thing would have been for his office—[ 
Interruption 
]—to make some sort of analysis of his answer on the day so that we would not be in the position of asking a question that might very well relate to that actual mistake.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:614] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am sure the member is right that certainly the matter could have been raised earlier today. But then of course I assume if you accept that that is a hard and fast rule that we will no longer have any points of order raised at any time other than immediately after the offence occurred—which has been a frequent occurrence already in this Parliament let alone in the previous Parliament.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:614] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The point is that the correction should come at the first available opportunity. We have had all day yesterday and we have had today. The Minister cannot tell us that this is the first moment that he knew about it. If he knew about it at the start of the House sitting today he should have brought it up then.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:614] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like some clarification because this is an important point for Ministers. If one has given an incorrect answer to the House one seeks leave to correct it because otherwise one is potentially exposed to a breach of privilege charge. I assume of course if leave is being denied that no member is then in a position to bring a breach of privilege charge.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:614] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The rule I understand is that a Minister makes a correction at the first available opportunity. We have had a day and half of sitting since that particular day. We have also been sitting here today since 2 o’clock—we have had over an hour today—so we would be inclined not to grant that leave. The Minister has of course the opportunity to make a ministerial statement to correct his position. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I think the course of action would be to deny the leave but I will put the question. Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:614] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct a statement I previously made in the House in response to a question for oral answer on 16 November 2005. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:614] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am just trying to help the Minister. It would help members enormously if the Minister would explain a little more rather than just saying he is going to correct something he said in the House in answer to some question. I ask the member to give a fraction more detail. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes; would the Minister clarify why leave is being sought.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:614] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. What is it about? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It is in response to a previous question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:614] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct a statement I previously made to the House.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:613] 
8.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports has he received on the KiwiSaver scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I received recently a report outlining the recommendations of the United Kingdom Pensions Commission that the British Government establish a national pension savings scheme similar to the KiwiSaver model. The similarities have led the British media to dub the model “BritSaver”. 
Shane Jones 
: Do any aspects of the United Kingdom Pensions Commission report vary substantively from the approach taken by this Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes; there is one particularly important difference. The British commission proposes to increase the age of eligibility for the publicly funded pension from 65 to 67. That is not something this Government is considering notwithstanding the equivocation on many occasions on this point from the current Leader of the Opposition.
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:601] 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why has she referred the actions of the Hon David Benson-Pope’s press secretary to Ministerial Services yet taken no action against the Hon David Benson-Pope himself in relation to the selective leaking of police documents? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Because the staff member concerned initially denied to media that his office was the source of the information in the  
Herald on Sunday 
. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why has the Prime Minister taken no action against Mr Benson-Pope who having delayed the scheduled release of the police file by several days authorised its selective leaking to accommodate his own political interests and does she accept his assurance that he was under no restraints about what he could do with the file despite his having previously said that its release date was a matter for the police? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is a matter of judgment by Ministers as to what they put in the public arena. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister asked Mr Benson-Pope for a full explanation as to why he authorised the deliberate leaking of parts of the police file over the weekend having previously delayed the scheduled release by the police for several days for his own political interests; if so what was the explanation given to her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat that it is a matter of judgment by Ministers as to what they put in the public arena and what legal action they choose to take to protect their reputation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister think it is fair that someone should be able to remember something that happened 22 or 23 years ago when a leader of a political party in this country could not remember talking to the Brethren church 4 days ago? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As members have indicated that question was not relevant to the original question. I rule the question out of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If I were to interpose in that question whether the Prime Minister had received any reports on the issue of fairness would it then be in order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It does not relate to the principal question. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Did Mr Benson-Pope give the Prime Minister a categorical assurance that he had absolutely nothing to do with his press secretary’s denying any involvement in the leak of the police file given that Mr Benson-Pope himself had clearly made a decision to authorise the leak and has she accepted such an assurance? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes and yes. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What is the point in keeping a Minister of the Crown whose actions have been deliberate and deceitful and whom the media and the public no longer trust? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not accept the assertions in the member’s question.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Referral to Privileges Committee—Hon David Benson-Pope 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Referral to Privileges Committee—Hon David Benson-Pope 
[Volume:628;Page:601] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to move without debate the motion in my name: “That the House refer to the Privileges Committee a question of privilege relating to an alleged contempt under Standing Order 400(b) by Hon David Benson-Pope who told the House on 12 May 2005 that ‘I have not been guilty of or involved in any inappropriate behaviour in my 24 years as a secondary school teacher’ despite what the police have described as ‘evidential sufficiency … that prima facie an assault(s) did occur.’ ” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Points of Order — Referral to Privileges Committee—Hon David Benson-Pope 
Points of Order — Referral to Privileges Committee—Hon David Benson-Pope 
[Volume:628;Page:601] 
Wednesday 7 December 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Referral to Privileges Committee—Hon David Benson-Pope 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to move without debate the motion in my name: “That the House refer to the Privileges Committee a question of privilege relating to an alleged contempt under Standing Order 400(b) by Hon David Benson-Pope who told the House on 12 May 2005 that ‘I have not been guilty of or involved in any inappropriate behaviour in my 24 years as a secondary school teacher’ despite what the police have described as ‘evidential sufficiency … that prima facie an assault(s) did occur.’ ” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Tolley Anne: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — Second Reading 
Tolley Anne: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:727] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. I also want to compliment my colleague Dr Richard Worth on his excellent chairing of the Regulations Review Committee which considered this bill. 
 When Dr Cullen introduced this bill into the House not too long ago he talked about the fact that it was confirming or validating one set of regulations and 18 Orders in Council under 11 Acts and had to be passed by the end of the calendar year to avoid the lapsing of some of those orders. Two out of the 18 orders are movements in consumer pricing five out of the 18 are orders under the Customs and Excise Act four come under the Tariff Act 1988 and two are biosecurity levies. It is those levies that I particularly want to address today. 
One of those levies is concerned with setting up a national pest management strategy for the varroa bee mite. I make the comment that this Government’s record on biosecurity is abysmal. I well remember when the varroa bee mite was discovered in New Zealand. There was a huge opportunity to stop the movement south from the Auckland region of the varroa bee mite. The Government sat on its hands and did nothing and we have now seen that bee mite make its way right throughout the North Island. That has had huge consequences in regions like the one I represent. That bee mite has been responsible for almost the complete eradication of feral bees which has enormous complications for horticulturalists kiwifruit growers and the growers on the Gisborne flats who rely on intensive pollination by bees to supply the produce that is the backbone of the economy—not only for regions such as mine but for this country. 
So the Government’s record of dealing with biosecurity risks like the varroa bee mite is absolutely appalling. In this bill the Government is now setting up a pest management strategy. I have to say that the horse has bolted. We heard in the House earlier today about the didymo which again the Government had done nothing about. It belatedly has come along and put controls and a strategy into place when the biosecurity risk has long overtaken the country. 
Other than that issue the only part of this bill that I want to mention is clause 12 which prohibits trout imports. Again in the area that I represent the Bay of Plenty trout fishing is a very important part of our tourism industry and we are pleased to see that it will continue under this legislation. 
Bill read a second time.
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — Second Reading 
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:727] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill confirms and validates 18 orders and one set of regulations. The bill must be passed before 31 December 2005. The bill was referred to the Regulations Review Committee on 16 November. The committee called for explanations from the seven departments administering the 18 orders and one set of regulations. The committee was satisfied with those explanations and presented its report on 24 November recommending that the bill be passed without amendment. I thank the select committee for its expeditious consideration of the bill and particularly Dr Richard Worth for his excellent chairing of the committee.
Tolley Anne: Third Readings 
Tolley Anne: Third Readings 
[Volume:628;Page:726] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I will take just a short call to talk about this omnibus legislation as a whole. Of course the National Party supports it. I particularly thank my colleagues for their contributions in the Committee stage and I thank the Chair for his patience. I want to say again though how disappointing it was when we had this legislation put before the House and it went through the process to be then presented with a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage that makes amendments to the Child Support Act given that just last week in the House we had the first reading of a bill to amend the Child Support Act. It is not right that the Government should seek to put through Supplementary Order Papers like that instead of following the democratic process. 
The changes that are being made to the Child Support Act correct sloppy legislation—they correct mistakes that have been made in it. It is not right that that should be done through a Supplementary Order Paper; it should be done through the proper processes of the House so that the Government is held to account. If the Government passes shoddy legislation then the public has a right to know that and to take part in a process that highlights that matter. I think it is poor government and it reflects very badly on this Government that it is quickly building a record of poor and incompetent management of legislation as it proceeds through the House. 
I do not make those comments lightly but I know that the child support legislation we debated last week was referred to a select committee with no time limit for it to be reported back. In terms of the rules of the House it has to be reported back within 6 months. It could have had a time limit put on it that would have brought it back to the House speedily so that these amendments could have been incorporated and passed in time. We did not get that. That bill could well have been introduced to the House earlier than the week before last in the sitting programme if it was as urgent as that so that it was able to go through the normal processes whereby the public has an opportunity to see the mistakes that the Government has made and to comment on them. It is not right that we sneak the amendments through by means of a Supplementary Order Paper introduced in the Committee stage and see the legislation immediately proceed to the third reading. 
Although the National Party is happy to support the legislation we put it on the record that it is disappointing that the Government again shows such incompetence poor management and poor legislative drafting that we have to come back and correct mistakes that were made. 
Bills read a third time.
Cosgrove Clayton: Third Readings 
Cosgrove Clayton: Third Readings 
[Volume:628;Page:726] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill the Biosecurity Amendment Bill the Cadastral Survey Amendment Bill the Child Support Amendment Bill the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill the Commerce Amendment Bill the Continental Shelf Amendment Bill the Corrections Amendment Bill the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill the District Courts Amendment Bill the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Amendment Bill the Forests Amendment Bill the Gambling Amendment Bill the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill the Incorporated Societies Amendment Bill the Judicature Amendment Bill the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill the Ombudsmen Amendment Bill the Personal Property Securities Amendment Bill the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill the Receiverships Amendment Bill the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill the Ship Registration Amendment Bill the Territorial Sea Contiguous Zone and Exclusive Economic Zone Amendment Bill the Trade Marks Amendment Bill the Valuers Amendment Bill the Weights and Measures Amendment Bill and the Wine Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I take this opportunity to thank a number of people who have been instrumental in the passage of this statutes amendment legislation beginning with the members of the Government Administration Committee. The legislation covers a vast area of subject matter and involved some unique challenges. I thank the select committee members for all the time and effort they put in. I thank the many officials who contributed; a total of 12 ministries or departments put forward amendments and provided advice. I thank the Minister responsible for the legislation during the term of the last Parliament the Hon Rick Barker. He did an excellent job of progressing the legislation and enhancing the processes involved in managing this legislation and other Statutes Amendment bills. I commend the bills to the House.
Guy Nathan: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — In Committee 
[Volume:628;Page:724] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 12A “Government Superannuation Fund Act 1956”. Many in the Chamber will be aware that I reside in the electorate that has the highest population of elderly constituents in the whole of the country—that is the Otaki electorate which covers Kapiti and Horowhenua. It was once a Labour stronghold and now is the most marginal seat in the country. I rise to speak about superannuation and how it affects those hard-working New Zealanders in the Otaki electorate and right across the country—those who have paid taxes and those who in the past may not have been fairly getting their correct married entitlement. It is great to see that a gentleman presented a petition to New Zealand First people who happened to be in my electorate prior to the campaign to try to sort out that anomaly. [ 
Interruption 
] Exactly. It is great to see that being sorted out. 
It is very very important that members acknowledge the Superannuation Fund particularly in times of hardship. The carbon tax is due to come in in 2007 which will actually see an increase in power prices and fuel prices and will make it even tougher for our elderly people to survive in this country. So I support Part 12A “Government Superannuation Fund Act 1956”. 
Part 12A agreed to.
Bennett David: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — In Committee 
Bennett David: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — In Committee 
[Volume:628;Page:724] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I was not actually going to stand to speak on this part but since Dr Michael Cullen is here I think it is appropriate when we look at—[ 
Interruption 
] The Bills Digest states that the definition of “housie” has changed and is now: “ ‘the numbers are selected randomly and announced to participants’ and ‘the participants mark or cover the numbers announced on their own cards’ ”. Now does that not sound like Labour Party policy when it is trying to work out student loans policy? That definition of Labour Party policy has now been incorporated through all legislation. 
Part 12 agreed to.
Auchinvole Chris: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — In Committee 
[Volume:628;Page:723] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I would like to speak on Part 10 which refers largely to the amendment of the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association under the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981. There are few organisations where I have found a warmer reception from people around Anzac Day than the RSA. 
Simon Power 
: Point well made! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I thank the member. However like so many organisations associated with a particular time in history it does need to increase its membership. Therefore I notice its change of name from just Returned Services Association to Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association. I know that the organisation is including additional people who have not necessarily had any association with the armed forces at all. It is all about community—community and belonging. The National Party is particularly proud to subscribe to those aspects. Small communities have their own beliefs and practices and they can get on and celebrate what they represent. 
One of the things I find fascinating having been a member since September is the total preoccupation of the present Government—and I include the utterances from members of the Government’s attendant parties—with the National Party. We seem to be all they ever talk about and I wonder why. They clearly have a deep-seated anxiety problem about their own precarious political platform. I understand—and have been told—that this precarious political platform is something they have arrived at after a panic pandemic over not being able to quickly form a Government as easily as they thought they could. It has been suggested to me that this panic pandemic sweeping through their ranks is what led to the baubles bangles and beads being buckled together to try to buy beneficence from others. 
It goes to show though that you get what you pay for. That is all you are going to get but the rest of us have to live with it too. In the case of the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association it is seeking to amend its membership it is seeking to increase its membership and it is seeking to continue its role in the community—and I wish to support that. 
Part 10 agreed to.
Tolley Anne: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — In Committee 
[Volume:628;Page:720] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I wish to speak on Supplementary Order Paper 3 which addresses the Child Support Act and the changes proposed. When I look at the proposed Supplementary Order Paper I have to ask the Minister the Hon Clayton Cosgrove why we are dealing with this issue at this stage in a Supplementary Order Paper when an amendment to the Child Support Act was sent to a select committee just last week with no time limit given so we have the usual 6 months in which to deal with it. If these issues were so urgent why were they not included in the bill sent to the select committee with a time limit in order for the normal processes to be observed? 
When we look at the proposed changes we see that the Minister is talking about clarifying and correcting. So on the one hand we have an incompetent Government not able to put through legislation that does not require clarifying or correcting but also we have a lazy Government that is determined to avoid the normal democratic processes by bringing in a Supplementary Order Paper to make changes to a bill that is already going through the democratic process at the select committee thereby avoiding public scrutiny and public input into those changes. The public expected more from this Government despite the fact that its members spent the whole election campaign debating National Party policies. They have been back-pedalling ever since and we have had Minister after Minister obviously not on top of his or her portfolio answering questions about incompetence in those portfolios and blaming staff when things go wrong. Here we have the classic example of a lazy and incompetent Minister trying to shove through alterations that could have been dealt with if he had just got his organisation in order by putting in place a sensible alteration through the existing processes. 
New Part 3AA agreed to.
Auchinvole Chris: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — In Committee 
[Volume:628;Page:720] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) which provides for—as I read in the commentary on the bill—a number of non-controversial amendments to a number of existing Acts. The majority of the statutes that are amended will have only minor changes or drafting amendments made to them but some statutes included in the main provisions of the bill will have significant amendments made to them. It is pleasing to be able to use this opportunity to address the Committee on a non-controversial issue. I am grateful to the whip for having such an opportunity. I have read Supplementary Order Papers 3 and 4 and the Bills Digest and I have read the bill. I have no concerns about the changes proposed from my study of them. 
The fact that none of the items is controversial however does not mean they are of no significance. I am acutely conscious that the drafting and making of laws statutes and regulations are of great significance particularly to those who have to live by them live within them or impose or enforce them. Many would say and do say that we already live in an over-regulated society and that is a view I share. 
Shane Jones 
: Oh! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It is; it is. But from that point of view I have searched the bill and have come away feeling comfortable that as far as I can assess it is a worthy bill that seeks to make sensible provision—for example to change such things as the Animal Welfare Act which the previous speaker mentioned by allowing for an extension of time for the proper investigation of cases. 
 However the fact that the bill does not contain controversy nevertheless leaves me with the very clear impression having been a member since September that controversy is often used in debate to cover what should be a clear explanation in answer to questions. I have often been surprised at the extent to which that has been carried out particularly in question time and I am delighted to be a member of a party that does not engage in such deceptive and desperate techniques. 
I support the bill and I am happy to support the changes it brings to the various Acts that it affects. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Tolley Anne: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — In Committee 
[Volume:628;Page:719] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 We are here today considering the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) and two Supplementary Order Papers. One of those Supplementary Order Papers splits the bill. I do not really have too much of a problem with that. The other Supplementary Order Paper 3 addresses the Child Support Act 1991. When we look at the Bills Digest explanation of what this Supplementary Order Paper is all about— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but in this debate we must confine ourselves to the part we are dealing with and only to that part. Part 1 deals with animal welfare. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: I will continue talking about animal welfare. Part 1 amends the Animal Welfare Act by substituting a new section that extends the time for the laying of an information in relation to offences against the Act from 1 year to 2 years if the offence was committed on or after the date on which the new section section 167 comes into force. We here on the National Party benches do not actually have a great deal of problem with that. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has said it has difficulties in prosecuting under the Act because it is unable to lay the relevant information within the 1-year time period. Representing the East Coast which is of course a rural area I have had representations from people telling me of those difficulties and asking us to support this part of bill and I do so on behalf of the National Party. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:719] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time.
Jones Shane: Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Shane: Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:719] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill with a few brief words. Unlike the speeches of the previous speakers the relationship is not inverse. Firstly this bill travelled through the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Secondly it enjoyed its time there because we did not need to take unnecessary submissions. We knew that the largest consultation process had been entered into and it was called a general election. This policy achieved inordinately high levels of support. It is going to turn a corner. It is going to take an approach where this assistance turns into longstanding human capital because we have chosen a visionary road where the benefits and the wealth-creating capacities of our students will be enhanced and where they will not be burdened with unnecessarily high levels of debt as opposed to an approach based on short-term consumption which is what would have happened had members on the other side—perish the thought—found themselves over on these benches. But rest assured that will not be so for a long time to come.  
Not only that—while this policy supports the ambitions of students it also expands the capacities of parents to bring more cash weekly into the household to buy shoes to make school trips and to offer something that has a higher level of value within those people than would have been the case had the dear members from the Opposition supported their murky friends. 
 So there have been two great outcomes. The third thing of course is that it introduces an improvement to the scale in terms of the tax. We see tax gathering as an investment in civil society in the key institutions and infrastructure that will cause the economy and society to remain not only cohesive but also upwardly mobile and very powerful. Long-winded speeches from the other side of the House do not escape the fact that they have a very short contribution fortunately for the nation.
Beyer Georgina: Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:716] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 The contribution from the member who has just resumed her seat really betrays the bitterness of that member who finds herself the handmaiden to Rodney Hide—full of whingeing and talking down the very good reasons why this bill should be supported in its second reading. Frankly this bill is about assisting New Zealanders in the best way. That was certainly evidenced by the result of the election—a result that that member most certainly did not benefit from as well as she might have thought she would. The party the member belongs to went from seven members down to two and she now finds herself in a party of two. 
The majority of New Zealanders overwhelmingly supported at least two of the key issues explained in this particular bill one of which gives assistance to New Zealand families through the Working for Families package. As from 1 April next year the average size of the extra family assistance is expected to be about $50 a week. That amount added to increases that were already scheduled to come into effect on 1 April next year will make a significant difference to family income. It will be as much as $100 extra a week in some cases. If the National Party members had been on the Government benches at precisely that time next year—1 April—those members would have cut $10 a week from the lowest income earners in this country by dealing with their annual increases. Potentially that would have cut the income of many thousands of New Zealanders. That is quite contrary to what is in this bill which is positive about New Zealand families. 
It is just like the Government’s student loan interest repayment pledge to wipe off the interest which will also be progressed in this bill. We have increased the participation rate in tertiary education in this country. Along with financial and human resources we have now also addressed the legacy that the party that sits across the way in Opposition in this House had set in motion and that has since indebted many thousands of New Zealanders. Those young people are the future of our country and since this Government has come into power it has always pledged to address the awful legacy of student loans that was left behind by the previous National Government. We will invest in our future New Zealanders. They will in turn reinvest by their good will and loyalty to this country by returning here to give of themselves in order to enhance New Zealand. 
I certainly support this bill.