edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Authority to Administer OathText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAuthority to Administer Oath[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:7. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Authority to Administer OathMr SPEAKER: I have received the following authorisation from His Excellency the Governor-General to administer the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to be taken or made by members of the House.
Smith Lockwood: Authority to Administer OathText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Lockwood: Authority to Administer Oath[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:7. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have received the following authorisation from His Excellency the Governor-General to administer the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to be taken or made by members of the House.
Election of SpeakerText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeElection of Speaker[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:7. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 9 December 2008Mr Speaker took the Chair at 11 a.m.Prayers.Election of SpeakerMr SPEAKER: I have to report that accompanied by members I waited upon His Excellency the Governor-General at Parliament House yesterday when I addressed His Excellency as follows:To which His Excellency replied as follows:I have further to report that I also addressed His Excellency as follows:To which His Excellency replied as follows:I desire to repeat my respectful acknowledgment to the House of the high honour it has done me in electing me to be its Speaker.
Smith Lockwood: Election of SpeakerText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Lockwood: Election of Speaker[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:7. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have to report that accompanied by members I waited upon His Excellency the Governor-General at Parliament House yesterday when I addressed His Excellency as follows:To which His Excellency replied as follows:I have further to report that I also addressed His Excellency as follows:To which His Excellency replied as follows:I desire to repeat my respectful acknowledgment to the House of the high honour it has done me in electing me to be its Speaker.
Hutchison Paul: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHutchison Paul: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20371. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): I must say that it was a pleasure listening to the members of the Labour Opposition being so gracious about my colleague the Hon John Carter. It was great to hear the enthusiasm of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove when he heard that I was about to speak on the good news in terms of Vote Health because indeed it is very good news. This year $528 million has been made available; $1.5 billion has been made available since National came into power in 2008.But I want to talk about health promotion and disease prevention which is something that Labour goes on and on and on about. We have an absolutely incredible record. First of all I will mention immunisation. Back in 2007 in the order of 76 percent of 2-year-olds were covered. Now that figure has rocketed up to 90 percent. That is an absolutely excellent achievement in the last few years.Let us look at the second thing: home insulation. Under the Labour Government something like 2000 or 3000 homes were insulated. Under the National Government 100000 homes have been insulated which is another great public health achievement. There is no doubt that a whole spectrum of respiratory illnesses is being prevented by this initiative which has been executed so ably by the National Government.Let us go on to rheumatic fever. This Budget puts $12 million into clinics for children. I think the plan is that something like 22000 children will be covered in this particular initiative which was something that the Labour Government talked about as one of its many many priorities and strategies year after year. But what did National do? We put it into action.Then we go on to smoking. What happened under Labour? There was something like a 10 percent increase in excise tax in 9 years. National has executed a 30 percent increase in excise tax and we know that this is one of the most effective methods in reducing smoking and all the ill health that is associated with it.Let us look at the roll-out of before-school checks. There were something like 1000 or so under the Labour Government. All Labour could do was about 1000 checks. Under National 100000 children have had before-school checks and something in the order of 8500 children have gone on to have their eyesight corrected or have various other interventions that have helped their eyesight.There is also the area of maternity. I must say that if ever there was an area of health promotion and disease prevention it must be the area of maternity.
Roy Heather: Voting — Correction—Misuse of Drugs Amendment BillText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Heather: Voting — Correction—Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20371. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT): I seek leave of the House to correct a vote on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You need to seek leave and what is the leave you are asking for?Hon HEATHER ROY: I would like to seek leave to alter the ACT vote. I should have voted 4 instead of 5 in opposition to the bill.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to change the vote for ACT from 4 to 5.Hon HEATHER ROY: I am sorry the other way round.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: From 5 to 4. Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Now the result of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill third reading is Ayes 104 Noes 14. The record will be corrected.
Blue Jackie: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBlue Jackie: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20358. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I am pleased to speak in the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. One of its prime aims is to control amphetamine precursors used in the manufacture of P or methamphetamine. Specifically I am talking about ephedrine and pseudoephedrine which will now with this bill be classed as classB2. They will no longer be available across the counter and will be available only on prescription.This complements a suite of Government actions that have been implemented to reduce the harms of P in the community and its impact on our society. I think the move has been very welcome as has been Supplementary Order Paper 258 which the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne brought to the House during the Committee stage. It puts untested psychoactive drugs under a temporary drug order meaning that they will be banned from the shelves for 12 months while they are tested. This is an interim measure and the Associate Minister indicated that more permanent enduring law will be brought to the House next year. I think it is important that we get this law right and I know that the Associate Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper has been welcomed widely. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20366. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes104New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Māori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1.Noes14Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4; Independent: Carter C.Bill read a third time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 104 Noes 15.
Wagner Nicky: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWagner Nicky: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20361. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]NICKY WAGNER (National): I am very pleased to support the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill at its third reading. It covers some serious issues that we need to address in order to increase the effectiveness of the control of drugs in New Zealand—in particular to manage the ingredients for the manufacture of methamphetamine P and to ban unregulated psychoactive substances such as Kronic.In order to starve local P labs of the ingredients for manufacturing P this bill reclassifies ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B controlled drugs so that cold and flu medicines that contain these substances will no longer be available over the counter. However if those medicines are needed by patients they can be acquired by prescription.I was interested to hear Kris Faafoi talking about the inconvenience of this. We went by Sir Peter Gluckman’s recommendation that there are plenty of alternative medicines that can fill this gap and we feel that the public are prepared to take that little bit of inconvenience for the good of the whole.I would also like to commend the Associate Minister of Heath Peter Dunne for his Supplementary Order Paper 258. It is an effective stopgap measure to control psychoactive substances such as Kronic which is a synthetic cannabis product. The Government is not prepared to allow these potentially lethal products to be freely available to young people so it has moved swiftly to ban these substances. This could happen as early as the end of next week. More permanent legislation will follow next year.I believe that this bill will have a significant impact on drug use in New Zealand and I commend it to the House.
Finlayson Christopher: Member Vacancy — Northland Electoral District—Hon John CarterText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Member Vacancy — Northland Electoral District—Hon John Carter[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20366. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of theActing Leader of the House: I moveThat pursuant to section 131(a) of the Electoral Act 1993 a vacancy in the Northland Electoral District having arisen in the period of six months prior to the date of the expiration of this Parliament no writ be issued for the election of a member of Parliament for that Electoral District to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of John McGregor Carter.The Hon John Carter resigned his parliamentary seat on 17 July 2011 creating a vacancy in his Northland electorate seat. Section 131 of the Electoral Act 1993 provides that no writ shall be issued for a by-election if a general election is to be held within 6 months of the occurrence of the vacancy and a resolution is passed by a majority of 75 percent of all the members of the House of Representatives to the effect that a writ is not to be issued to supply the vacancy.
Hutchison Paul: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHutchison Paul: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20352. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): In supporting this third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill everyone in Parliament is aware of just how difficult the challenges of psychoactive drugs are to New Zealand society. Over the last decade or so there has been an explosion of the use of highly addictive mind-altering substances and pure methamphetamine is one substance at the centre of them. Today New Zealanders are probably some of the highest users of P anywhere in the world. There has also been an explosion in the use of synthetic cannabinoids which are now available at corner dairies around our country and there is a real danger of normalising this situation for our young people. These drugs must not be normalised. Smoking them has significant long-term adverse health effects and there is no doubt that their psychoactive effects when mixed with alcohol can be hugely detrimental.We are all aware that the Law Commission stressed the value of rehabilitation services of education of harm minimisation and of a public health approach and its report will be visited very seriously I am sure by all of us. But the Law Commission also stressed that there were no silver bullets to this situation. It is highly complex; there are no simple solutions. Abuse of drugs and the callous commercial trade associated with them has gone on for centuries around the world and it has become more and more intense in New Zealand over recent times.This legislation is a part of the National Government’s response to and battle against pure methamphetamine. Reclassifying pseudoephedrine and ephedrine as class B drugs carries with it a very severe penalty and sends very clear messages that methamphetamine and its precursors in this country are utterly unacceptable. The Hon Peter Dunne must indeed be congratulated on bringing in his two Supplementary Order Papers to stop the sale of synthetic cannabinoids. The manufacturers cannot be trusted; they are conniving and ruthless and will stop at nothing to entice young New Zealandersinto drug dependency. This is an interim measure until such time as one can bring in legislation that will require the manufacturers to prove the safety of these drugs. The sooner that happens the better but in the meantime I support the third reading of this bill into legislation. Thank you.
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20342. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to theMinister for the Environment: What reports has he received on consents granted on renewable electricity projects since the ETS came into effect and how does this compare with the previous decade?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): More consents were granted for renewable energy projects in the last year than ever in New Zealand’s history. A total of 1340 megawatts was consented which was made up of 59 percent wind energy 26 percent geothermal energy 13 percent hydro energy and 2 percenttidal energy. This is five times the average per year over the previous decade when it was 233 megawatts per year. It is also noteworthy that no new thermal generation was consented which contrasts with the last decade when most of the new capacity was from fossil fuel.Nikki Kaye: What changes in Government policy have contributed to this surge in renewable energy projects?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first change is in the price signals. The previous Government subsidised fossil fuel generation. The new 155 megawattWhirinaki diesel station was funded from Government levies and the Government provided an underwriting guarantee for the gas contract on the massive 385 megawatt e3p new generator at Huntly. In contrast the emissions trading scheme has imposed a price penalty on fossil fuel generation since 1 July. The second change has been in the consenting policy. Whereas renewable stations used to take up to 5 years to get through the Resource Management Act our Resource Management Act reforms have freed up the process and consenting decisions are being made in record time. We have also adopted a Resource Management Act national policy statement on renewables in order to support increased capacity.Brendon Burns: When the Minister suggests that his emissions trading scheme has boosted renewable energy investment how many of the 11 new stations consented to were in fact well under way in planning and consent before the change of Government or does he pretend it is all his own work?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Of the new generating station capacity of 1340 megawatts just over 1000 megawatts—about 80 percent—was after the emissions trading scheme legislation was passed. It was after the emissions trading scheme legislation was passed—Hon David Parker: That wasn’t the question.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —which I think Mr Parker would note was in the dying days of the last Labour Government.
Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20341. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) to theMinister of Finance: Does he agree with former Treasury Secretary John Whitehead that a retirement age of 65 is “pretty hard to justify” and that an increase is “inevitable”; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No. The Government’s policy is clear: the continuation of universal national superannuation for all New Zealanders from age 65. The cost of this policy does rise but it is fully factored into all projections made by this Government.Hon Heather Roy: Has he seen Gabriel Makhlouf’s speech made when he was the deputy chief executive of Treasury where he stated that New Zealand needs to either increase GST to 19 percent or raise average income tax by $30 per week to fund the existing retirement age and in light of his Government’s refusal to change the age which option does he favour?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot recall whether I have seen that speech but it would be entirely consistent with Treasury’s view. As Mr Makhlouf will be finding in his new job as the Secretary to the Treasury part of the professional task is to be gloomy and forecast that things are going to be pretty rough in the future. I am sure he will stick to that task.Hon Heather Roy: Does he think that John Whitehead; the Retirement Commissioner Diana Crossan; Gareth Morgan; Bernard Hickey; and others are all wrong in calling for the raising of the retirement age as Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard is doing in Australia; if so what information does he have that they do not have?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The information we have is a firm commitment made by this Government not to execute that policy. If those advisers all want to change the policy then they should run for office. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: I have called the Hon Heather Roy and I want to hear her question.Hon Heather Roy: Does he think it more caring to give retirees time to plan for their future by raising the age over a long transition period or has he too adopted the John Key approach of leaving the problem of funding superannuation for a future Government that he is not part of to deal with at short notice?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No the Government is not leaving the problem. What we are doing is bringing to the Government much-needed fiscal discipline in light of changed circumstances and the recklessness of the last Labour Government because for every dollar that we can put into effective rather than ineffective services we are improving the likelihood that retirees in the future will have a decent standard of living.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFlavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20338. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to theDeputy Prime Minister: Kei hea ngā mahi i te wā nei mō te whakatū ropū ārahi i te arotakenga-whānui o ngā whakaritenga ā-ture o Aotearoa?[What progress has been made on establishing a group to lead a wide-ranging review of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements?]Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): The Government confirmed such a review in December that would include the size of Parliament the length of the electoral term Māori representation the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and whether New Zealand needs a written constitution. Today the Minister of Māori Affairs Dr Pita Sharples and I confirmed the make-up of the Constitutional Advisory Panel. It will be co-chaired by Professor John Burrows and Sir Tīpene O’Regan. It will shortly begin work on a plan to inform public debate and it will report back to Ministers in September 2013.Te Ururoa Flavell: What significance has been accorded to Crown-Māori relationship matters including Māori representation and electoral participation and how does the membership of the panel reflect this?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The significance attributed to the Crown-Māori relationship is appropriate to the historical and contemporary practice of that relationship. In the context of the panel itself Dr Sharples and I are supervising the panel together there are co-chairs—Professor John Burrows and Sir Tīpene O’Regan—and I think the balance of the membership reflects a strong and broad Māori interest in constitutional matters.Te Ururoa Flavell: How will tangata whenua be involved in the discussion on New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That discussion will probably begin in earnest next year. The plan of the panel as I understand it is to have one meeting this year then to keep clear of the electoral referendum that is associated with the 2011 election. The panel’s terms of reference require it to listen to a wide range of views. I hope that many Māori who have strong constitutional views will take the opportunity to air those so that the public are more familiar with them and get to grips with the implications of those views. Often these discussions are held just between the Crown and Māori and they deserve a broader airing.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20334. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to theMinister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): More good news. This week we have seen reports of both jobs and wages growing. The household labour force survey released today shows that 43000 jobs were created in the past year—43000 new jobs—with unemployment at 6.5 percent. Earlier in the week the quarterly employment survey showed that even after adjusting for inflation the after-tax average wage grew 2.1 percent in the past year.Tim Macindoe: How has the economy performed through recent economic shocks?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Both the economy and New Zealanders have been remarkably resilient. The figures for the last quarter include the considerable impact of the Christchurch earthquake. But the numbers show that the economy has been growing moderately and unemployment has been slowly falling from a peak of 7 percent in 2009. Since the peak in 2009 there have been 61000 new jobs and total hours worked are up about 4 percent.Tim Macindoe: How much have real after-tax wages risen in the past year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: If we use the measure that Parliament has legislated as the basis for calculating national superannuation the after-tax average wage rose by 7.4 percent in the past year due to a combination of wage growth and the 1 October tax cuts. Over the same year inflation was 5.3 percent driven in large part by the increase in GST. The real after-tax average wage increased by 2.1 percent in the year to June even after accounting for all consumer price increases including food petrol and the increase in GST.Tim Macindoe: How has the Government’s tax switch contributed to increases in real after-tax wages?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member may recall in Budget 2010 the Government reduced income taxes and increased GST and the taxation on investment property as well as closing a number of loopholes around Working for Families and other income assistance. The package helped to rebalance our economy away from excessive consumption and debt towards savings investment and exports.
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Committee of the Whole House—Motions to Report ProgressText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Committee of the Whole House—Motions to Report Progress[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20329. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Yesterday the Committee sought my ruling on the moving of motions to report progress a motion to do just that having been defeated by the Committee of the whole House on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill.The House has a fundamental principle that having once dealt with a matter it refrains from raising it again. Standing Order 260 establishes this principle as a rule for bills amendments or instructions proposed that are substantially the same in effect as ones that have already been agreed to or defeated. Clearly where a Committee has defeated a motion to report progress and another motion to report progress is moved immediately thereafter it simply raises again the matter the Committee has already resolved.However motions that progress be reported during the Committee stage do not always raise the same considerations. The rejection of such a motion in one circumstance does not presuppose that it may be similarly rejected in a new Committee on a different day or during the consideration of a different provision of the bill.Therefore a motion to report progress moved pursuant to Standing Order 177(1) having been defeated by the Committee a further motion to report progress may not be moved while the procedural circumstances remain unchanged—in other words while that Committee continues to consider the same substantive question proposed by the Chair.
Parker David: Points of Order — Privilege—Procedure for Raising BreachesText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Points of Order — Privilege—Procedure for Raising Breaches[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20329. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not challenging that ruling. I am raising a different issue and that was your reference to publicity surrounding privilege complaints undermining the case for the complaint to be referred to the Privileges Committee. I make two points: the first is that historically most of the contentious complaints that have gone to the Privileges Committee have had publicity outside that process and the Winston Peters case is a good example. The second point I would make is that in cases where—and this may well be a case in point—the media have had an involvement in the facts that have led to the Privileges Committee complaint then there is actually no way that a member can effectively stop the media reporting on these issues.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Privilege—Procedure for Raising BreachesText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Lockwood: Points of Order — Privilege—Procedure for Raising Breaches[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20329. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I hear what the honourable member is saying and what is notable in some cases is that it is the very member who lays the complaint who actually pursues the matter in the media. But I accept the point the member makes: that other members may well raise matters because they do not necessarily know that an issue has been referred to the Speaker. I accept the point the member makes but the fact remains that while a matter is in front of the Speaker—and the Office of the Clerk does know when it is—the Office of the Clerk will not accept a notice of motion. I have ruled on the matter today and I do not think there is a need to take any further time on it because as I read the Speakers’ rulings this maintains the status quo.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Privilege—Procedure for Raising BreachesText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Lockwood: Points of Order — Privilege—Procedure for Raising Breaches[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20328. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I thank both honourable members for the constructive way they have raised this issue. I must agree with the Hon Chris Finlayson that he has come to the heart of the issue. The Hon Trevor Mallard is quite correct that these matters can be raised by notice of motion in the House; that is very clear. But I disagree that Speaker’s ruling 180/2 is irrelevant. I believe it is totally relevant to the situation and the point made by the Hon Chris Finlayson is relevant. Once a letter of complaint has been lodged with the Speaker then until the Speaker determines the outcome of that complaint it cannot be raised in the House. Certainly if the Speaker declines to refer it to the Privileges Committee then it can be raised in the House once the Speaker has determined the matter. But as in all issues that involve judicial decisions once the matter is before the Speaker then it is inappropriate for it to be raised in the House in any way whatsoever until the Speaker has made the relevant decision on the matter. Of course the alternative mechanism remains available to members. They can raise the matter by notice of motion in the House rather than refer it to the Speaker.I think the Hon Chris Finlayson made the very pertinent point that once the matter is referred to the Speaker then it should be a matter that is not discussed in this House. It would be my preference that the matter is not discussed in the media either. If members are serious about issues of privilege it is my view that they should not try to make a case to influence the decision of the Speaker one way or the other in the public media. To some extent it is a measure of the seriousness of these issues. Where members do try to gain political coverage for them in the media it is hard to then treat them with thesame seriousness as a case that is laid before the Speaker in a serious manner without trying to make the case for it in front of the media.The situation to me is very clear. There is nothing wrong with these matters being raised by a notice of motion instead of referring them to the Speaker. There is nothing wrong with raising a matter in that way after the Speaker has decided the matter but while the Speaker is considering a matter it is not to be dealt with in that way in the House.
Finlayson Christopher: Points of Order — Privilege—Procedure for Raising BreachesText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Points of Order — Privilege—Procedure for Raising Breaches[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20328. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Just very briefly I say that Chapter VIII of the Standing Orders deals with parliamentary privilege. An allegation of breach of privilege is a very serious allegation. There is a very clear procedure set out in Chapter VIII as to the way in which issues of breach of privilege are dealt with including procedural aspects of reference to you Mr Speaker. It is entirely appropriate that once the matter has been raised with you by letter until it is determined—whether in a threshold way by you or referred on to the Privileges Committee—it is inappropriate to have those matters canvassed in the House. That is what lies behind Speaker Wall’s ruling at Speaker’s ruling 180/5.
Finlayson Christopher: Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Business Statement[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20327. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): As to the second question I will not dignify it with a response. As to the first point on issues of urgency the Acting Leader of the House anticipated the inquiry and is open to having a discussion with the shadow Leader of the House next week both in terms of the appropriation bill and what future weeks look like.
Auchinvole Chris: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAuchinvole Chris: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20363. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman): I follow on from the member opposite Damien O’Connor and can make a claim to the same limited personal experience of the abuse of drugs other than cigarettes and alcohol. Sure we have been discussing and debating those at length as well.The National-led Government is creating a temporary class of drug orders to take these particular drugs and other synthetic cannabis products off the market by the middle of August. The temporary class drug orders are an interim measure. During a 12-month ban a committee will assess the risk of harm of a substance and recommend whether it should be classified as a controlled drug scheduled as a restricted substance or remain unregulated.From the date on which a temporary class drug order comes into force the import export manufacture supply and sale of the substance will be illegal. This will be of huge inconvenience to a group of people whom I have just heard described as commercial entrepreneurs. I think that is gracing them with a title they do not deserve. The people who are involved in selling this stuff are predators and they are predating on our children.I sense almost a reluctance on the other side of the House which I am sorry to hear that this bill would prove to be a nuisance to the manufacturers and result in their being more inventive rather than honest. Honesty is not a given with people who deal in this sort of business. Before I have an ounce of sympathy for this particular group of mercenary traders I feel one should realise the misery they create amongst individual lives families and whole communities in their selfish pursuit of profit because that is their only interest.These traders are in my mind a parasitic group of people. Their business is to engage people not through a satisfactory service but through addiction. This is a quality of tobacco manufacturers and it has been so criticised by this House recently and we should apply equal contempt towards the people who are pushing these other substances.Let me close with a slightly cynical memory of a Tom Lehrer song “The Old Dope Peddler”. There is a beautiful chorus which goes:He gives the kids free samplesBecause he knows full wellToday’s young innocent facesWill be tomorrow’s clientele.These predators are preying on our children. Every move we can make to disrupt their commercial activities should be taken and they deserve no consideration in the debate whatsoever. Thank you.
Mallard Trevor: Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Business Statement[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20327. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Through you Mr Speaker can I ask the acting Acting Leader of the House two questions. The first is whether the intention is to proceed straight to the third reading of the appropriations legislation and if so will that be done under urgency? The second question is whether in future we can rely on minutes or notifications from the office of the Leader of the House that indicate House business or are we to have repeats of what happened yesterday when they were misleading?
Finlayson Christopher: Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Business Statement[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20327. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of theActing Leader of the House: I am the acting Acting Leader of the House today not the Attorney-General. When the House resumes on Tuesday 9 August the Government intends to complete the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2011/2012 Estimates) Bill before proceeding to the third reading. The Government also intends to make further progress on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2).
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Privilege—Procedure for Raising BreachesText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Points of Order — Privilege—Procedure for Raising Breaches[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20329. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just one further point: I think the gap in the reasoning from both the Attorney-General and you is that raising it with you is a private matter. It is generally not in the media. There are over 120 members here. The fact that one member has raised it with you should not and in my opinion cannot stop other members raising it by way of notice because as happens on a number of occasions—and I have written you a number of letters; I have not consulted my colleagues about those—their right to raise the matter as well through whichever method they choose should not and cannot be limited by a complaint unknown to them through your channel.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20373. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat Vote Health be agreed to.Ayes65New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Māori Party 3; United Future 1.Noes53New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C.Vote Health agreed to.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20344. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to theMinister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to support teen parents?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I am pleased to update the House on the progress of the Government’s work on teen parents. We have put $15 million into teen parents which is the biggest investment in one lot that has ever been made. As part of the package we have opened a number of supported homes for teen parents around the country. These supported homes are providing 24/7 support and supervision for these young mothers. The last one is about to be opened very shortly in Gisborne.Jonathan Young: What other initiatives are working to support teen parents?Hon PAULA BENNETT: We also invested a lot in intensive case workers for the most vulnerable of teen parents who need much more of a wraparound service and who have very complex needs in most of the cases. We so far have 19 of those case workers in very high-need communities and we have also put additional support in for those intensive case managers so that they can do the work that is needed most.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Privilege—Procedure for Raising BreachesText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Lockwood: Points of Order — Privilege—Procedure for Raising Breaches[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20329. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I understand the point the member makes. That is a perfectly reasonable point indeed.
Upston Louise: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUpston Louise: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20378. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): It is my privilege to stand and speak this afternoon on Vote Environment. I am proud to be one of John Key’s team and proud of the fact that he has navigated the balance so nicely around growing the economy and protecting the environment. I thought I would touch on three areas in particular and I want to give a very local example of how exactly that balance can be achieved.I will talk about the creation of the Environmental Protection Authority under the leadership of Minister Nick Smith; renewable energy which again has been touched on by the Minister under his climate change responsibilities; and also the environmental issue that affects the Taupō electorate more than anything and that of course is water quality and our Fresh Start for Fresh Water Clean-up Fund.Let me start with the Environmental Protection Authority because the establishment of that authority is yet another election promise delivered. It was something that was talked about in the blue-green vision document and it is great to see it being enforced from 1 July. Clearly in terms of the estimates funding has been put aside for this stand-alone authority that provides central direction at a national level and makes environmental protection so much easier. It brings together the range of regulatory functions but more important it provides the direction that has been so lacking under the previous Labour Government. Regional and district councils actually have some guidance now in terms of providing some direction.One of the other things that the Environmental Protection Authority has been able to do is the national consenting processes. This is particularly valuable with renewable energy projects of which there are quite a few in the Taupō electorate. One of the questions that came up today in the Chamber which Minister Smith was talking about was the stunning results that we are seeing in terms of renewable energy in this country. We are seriously on track to achieve our target of 90 percent renewable energy by 2025 and we have had consented in 2010 the highest level ever in terms of generation with renewable sources. [Interruption] Forty-two percent was geothermal. The Taupō electorate is the heart of geothermal energy.Progress reported.Report adopted.
Voting — Correction—Misuse of Drugs Amendment BillText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVoting — Correction—Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20371. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]VotingCorrection—Misuse of Drugs Amendment BillHon HEATHER ROY (ACT): I seek leave of the House to correct a vote on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You need to seek leave and what is the leave you are asking for?Hon HEATHER ROY: I would like to seek leave to alter the ACT vote. I should have voted 4 instead of 5 in opposition to the bill.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to change the vote for ACT from 4 to 5.Hon HEATHER ROY: I am sorry the other way round.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: From 5 to 4. Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Now the result of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill third reading is Ayes 104 Noes 14. The record will be corrected.
Speaker’s Rulings — Committee of the Whole House—Motions to Report ProgressText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSpeaker’s Rulings — Committee of the Whole House—Motions to Report Progress[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20329. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Speaker’s RulingsCommittee of the Whole House—Motions to Report ProgressMr SPEAKER: Yesterday the Committee sought my ruling on the moving of motions to report progress a motion to do just that having been defeated by the Committee of the whole House on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill.The House has a fundamental principle that having once dealt with a matter it refrains from raising it again. Standing Order 260 establishes this principle as a rule for bills amendments or instructions proposed that are substantially the same in effect as ones that have already been agreed to or defeated. Clearly where a Committee has defeated a motion to report progress and another motion to report progress is moved immediately thereafter it simply raises again the matter the Committee has already resolved.However motions that progress be reported during the Committee stage do not always raise the same considerations. The rejection of such a motion in one circumstance does not presuppose that it may be similarly rejected in a new Committee on a different day or during the consideration of a different provision of the bill.Therefore a motion to report progress moved pursuant to Standing Order 177(1) having been defeated by the Committee a further motion to report progress may not be moved while the procedural circumstances remain unchanged—in other words while that Committee continues to consider the same substantive question proposed by the Chair.
Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBusiness Statement[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20327. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 4 August 2011Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of theActing Leader of the House: I am the acting Acting Leader of the House today not the Attorney-General. When the House resumes on Tuesday 9 August the Government intends to complete the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2011/2012 Estimates) Bill before proceeding to the third reading. The Government also intends to make further progress on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2).Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Through you Mr Speaker can I ask the acting Acting Leader of the House two questions. The first is whether the intention is to proceed straight to the third reading of the appropriations legislation and if so will that be done under urgency? The second question is whether in future we can rely on minutes or notifications from the office of the Leader of the House that indicate House business or are we to have repeats of what happened yesterday when they were misleading?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): As to the second question I will not dignify it with a response. As to the first point on issues of urgency the Acting Leader of the House anticipated the inquiry and is open to having a discussion with the shadow Leader of the House next week both in terms of the appropriation bill and what future weeks look like.
Robertson Grant: Inquiries — Inquiry into the 2008 General Election—Consideration of Report of Justice and Electoral Committee; Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Inquiries — Inquiry into the 2008 General Election—Consideration of Report of Justice and Electoral Committee; Sittings of the House 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7826. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to rise at this point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not.
Inquiries — Inquiry into the 2008 General Election—Consideration of Report of Justice and Electoral Committee; Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Inquiries — Inquiry into the 2008 General Election—Consideration of Report of Justice and Electoral Committee; Sittings of the House 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7826. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Inquiries 
Inquiry into the 2008 General Election—Consideration of Report of Justice and Electoral Committee 
No member having risen members’ order of the day No. 9 for consideration of the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the inquiry into the 2008 general election was discharged. 
Sittings of the House 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to rise at this point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not.