edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Turei Metiria: Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill — Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16198] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 As impotent as it might make some politicians feel the fact is that legislation cannot fix everything and this legislation can certainly not fix the problems that my colleague Ron Mark my whanaunga Ron Mark has brought to the attention of the House. There are serious concerns and he has within him a legitimate concern that he wants dealt with. But this bill will not fix it; no bill will fix it. I am proud that the Green Party opposed this legislation from the beginning continues to oppose it through this second reading and looks forward to its failure in this House because this is not the solution to deal with the very real concerns that Ron Mark has raised. Thank you.
Hobbs Marian: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16192] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I ask for members’ order of the day No. 3 to be called can I just give some clarification. There was a lot of noise earlier and I was coping with interjections. I am perfectly happy—and I think the House is happy—when interjections are related to the bill. When the interjections become more personal and are totally unrelated to the bill and more about elections and whatever I will call for order. When the noise in the House gets to such a level because of personal conversation members will see me gesturing but I will also call for order.
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16192] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time.
Parker David: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Parker David: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16191] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I congratulate Darien Fenton on the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. This bill started as an amendment to the legislation I drafted. 
Simon Power 
: The Minister is taking the credit now. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I would like to take not the credit but some of the responsibility for this because most people in this House agree that we should have a minimum wage. I know that the National Party would like it to be lower than it is now but even it agrees that we should have a minimum wage. It is nonsense that someone can be doing the equivalent of waged work through a contracted arrangement and have no protection at all under the current law. 
A person who effectively works for the equivalent of a wage by delivering pamphlets can be absolutely abused by his or her employer by being paid what could be as low as 25c an hour and that person would have no legislative protection. That is wrong. That is the mischief this bill addresses by giving those people some level of protection. They do not get all of the other protections that people who are employees get. They do not get holidays and they do not get sick leave. They do not get some other protections that people who are employees get but they should get a minimum rate of remuneration. Because they are vulnerable people working in a lower-paid occupation because they do not have other choices they should not be paid some piddling little amount like a dollar an hour. That is quite wrong. 
I think it is absolutely wrong for members of the Opposition to prevent the position of those people from being improved by giving them some level of minimum entitlement. That is why I started to bring this matter forward. As a Minister I cannot bring forward members’ bills so Darien Fenton offered to take it forward for me. I congratulate her on that. I also thank some of the business lobby who have made this legislation more workable. Some good ideas have come forward from the likes of Business New Zealand which even though it is opposed to the provision has offered its help to make it more practical so that as we introduce it it will work. 
The fundamental of this matter is that it is wrong that employers can avoid the minimum wage by taking on people as contractors—such as people who deliver pamphlets and advertising material around the streets—and avoid paying them a minimum level of compensation upon which they could live. That is the basis for our minimum wage legislation. People who do a fair day’s work should be paid enough so that they can survive without reliance on a benefit and without resorting to crime. That is why this sort of legislation is absolutely appropriate for this Parliament to pass and I for one am very pleased to cast my vote in favour of it.
Moroney Sue: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Moroney Sue: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16190] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the second reading of this bill and to congratulate my colleague Darien Fenton on having the fortitude to bring this very important bill forward. Of course the National Party opposes it because it has to do with guaranteeing the minimum wage to a group of hard-working people and National has never liked that. When members opposite were in Government for a whole decade in the 1990s they made that very clear by ensuring that they did not move the minimum wage except once. In a whole decade they moved the minimum wage just once. Of course they do not want the minimum wage extended to another group of vulnerable hard-working New Zealanders. 
Before the dinner break David Bennett a member who is more famous for his after-dinner speeches spoke about freedom of choice. He sounded just like Bill Birch but without the pizzazz and without the ability to actually be able to sell it. David Bennett talked about the freedom to pay hard-working New Zealanders less than the minimum wage. That is David Bennett’s freedom of choice. I oppose that and I support this bill. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.
Guy Nathan: General Debate 
Guy Nathan: General Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16160] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague who was just speaking David Bennett had a few problems getting members’ names correct and I acknowledge that. I would just like to draw your attention to the fact that when you were on your feet you said that you would use a yellow card. I have just taken the opportunity to look through the  
Standing Orders of the House of Representatives 
 and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 the booklets that guide us through proceedings in this House. I wonder whether you could explain to the House where I could find a yellow card mentioned in one of those booklets. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is actually a figure of speech but for the member’s benefit I think I might actually have one. It means that the member is on a final warning; he gets one chance.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:647;Page:16148] 
1.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: Does he stand by his statement to  
Carbon 
News 
 on 19 May with regard to the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill that “Every submitter had been given at least 10 minutes’ hearing time and more if they asked for it.”? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 No. That had been my impression but I have now had the chance to look through the minutes of our committee’s last nine meetings. Of the 160 submitters heard 155 received hearings lasting 10 minutes or more. As to requests for hearings in excess of 10 minutes I am advised that committee staff sought to accommodate all such requests where they could practicably do so and managed to do so in most cases. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the chairperson consider that that is satisfactory given that an email from Temperzone Ltd states: “We were summoned to appear in a group with non-affiliated parties. We wonder why we were not consulted on this forcible grouping. We had to shorten our submission to 5 minutes. We had no time to present and debate the issues.”; is that a satisfactory situation for a company that employs 550 people that exports $100 million worth of air conditioning units and that says this legislation will put its existence at risk? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: The facts are that Temperzone Ltd was heard with the Institute of Refrigeration Heating and Air Conditioning Engineers of New Zealand and Fisher and Paykel Appliances Ltd and just before the Trust for the Destruction of Ozone Depleting Substances. All those entities wanted to speak to the committee about the issue of hydrofluorocarbons. The group submission received from 12.35 p.m. to 1.05 p.m. and the trust received a further 10 minutes—from 1.05 p.m. to 1.15 p.m. I think that was a very satisfactory process. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the letter of complaint that the committee has received from Temperzone. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Supplementary question— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No there are no further supplementary questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to ask a supplementary question on a very important matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. Sorry—I tried.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:647;Page:16147] 
12.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What action is the Government taking to simplify reporting standards for business? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 During the Quality Regulation Review it became apparent that businesses were facing compliance costs associated with providing the same or similar information to different Government departments. The Government has decided to fund a cross-Government investigation into introducing and implementing a system of standard business reporting and the implementation of a single business number. This means that businesses will have to submit information once only in a standard form which will allow the information then to be passed on to the relevant Government agencies. It will further reduce business compliance costs which have been on a downward trend under this Labour-led Government. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Will the Minister tell the House whether she has been advised of the level of potential savings to New Zealand business from the reduced compliance costs that such a system would deliver? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes. The advice I have received is that based on comparative data from other countries that have adopted standard business reporting the estimated benefit to New Zealand business could be on low projections $55 million per year and on high projections $75 million per year. These savings would be a major contributor to productivity improvement across industry and in particular within the small to medium sized enterprise sector.
Sio Su'a William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Sio Su'a William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:647;Page:16140] 
6.  
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What reports has he received on the price impact of biofuels in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I have seen a report from Gull Petroleum celebrating that it has already sold enough biofuel to meet the New Zealand sales obligation if it was in place right now. As to the cost its biofuel blend of petrol which comes from sustainable New Zealand sources is priced at less than the cost of the petrol sold by its competitor oil companies. I am further advised that bio-diesel blends from New Zealand tallow are expected to retail at less than 2c a litre more than traditional diesel. If traditional diesel increases in price bio-diesel blends could be cheaper than traditional diesel. 
Su’a William Sio 
: What misconceptions has the Minister seen about the cost of biofuels? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have heard John Key say that paying an extra 7c a litre for biofuels is not the way to go and that National will be opposing the Biofuel Bill. He is way off the mark; it is now clear that New Zealand biofuels will be both sustainable and affordable. I along with officials and biofuel producers can show National members that their concerns are unfounded. However they are clearly determined to oppose climate change initiatives in order to try to score political points. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister seen the United Nations World Food Programme report that described biofuel as “a crime against humanity” because of its effect on world food production and prices; if so why is he pressing ahead with the bill which will as he admits himself require New Zealand to import biofuels from unsustainable sources overseas or has he now changed his mind and is telling us that the biofuel obligation can be met from biofuel grown and produced in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member continues to make the mistake that some other people in this debate do. Just because some biofuels come from unsustainable sources does not mean all biofuels will come from unsustainable sources. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was an interesting contribution from the Minister but was hardly an answer. The simple question was whether he changed his mind about the capacity of the New Zealand industry to deliver sustainable biofuels or whether he is still saying it is OK to import biofuels that are grown on land where rainforests have been cleared. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Part of the problem there is that what the member just said is not the question he actually asked. The Minister certainly addressed the question that was asked. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: My recollection of the question and the answer is that the answer did address the question. That may not have been in the terms that the member expected but the answer did actually address the substance of the question and that is all that is required.
Simich Clem: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:15991] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time for the debate has expired. The debate on the performance in 2006/2007 and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises has therefore concluded. I will report the debate to the House presently. 
Debate to be reported presently.
Guy Nathan: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:15987] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We just may have overlooked Internal Affairs. The National Party would like to make a contribution on the New Zealand Fire Service Commission and I seek the leave of the Committee to go back to that please. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. We have not overlooked it; we are some way off it. Would you like to do it now? 
Nathan Guy 
: Yes.
Hobbs Marian: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:15967] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: When the Committee was last considering this matter it had completed 1 of the 3 hours allocated for the debate. Two hours therefore remain. The debate on the performance of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises is a series of debates on individual financial reviews of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported by select committees. The debates on the individual financial reviews should be relevant to their performance in the 2006-07 financial year and their current operations. 
A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. A list of the financial reviews available for debate is appended to the Order Paper. Reports on entities yet to be reported or those debated earlier cannot be debated. I understand that members have indicated the Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises they wish to debate.
Henare Tau: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — Third Reading 
Henare Tau: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:15965] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I too want to say welcome to the folks from Tauranga Moana. What they are seeing tonight is something we do not see every day in this House and that is a bipartisan approach to an issue. I am happy to say I have enjoyed the process that the Maori Affairs Committee has worked through. 
I am of the generation outside of Tauranga Moana who did not even know the name of the Mount. I was brought up in South Auckland knowing that there was a place down in Tauranga called the Mount. Earlier on the very day we went to the select committee hearing in Tauranga my wife and I took a ride out to the Mount for the first time ever. [ 
Interruption 
] No I was not allowed in. It cost too much. I got a feel for the place for the first time and I think everybody in New Zealand should at least once in their short life visit that place called Mauao. 
The select committee process was an easy one. It was easy because of the bipartisan approach we take on most things in the Maori Affairs Committee. It has never been easier to find a way through to some common ground than I think happened in respect of this bill. So I want to praise all the members of the select committee including our chairperson who from day one said he had a conflict of interest. He pointed out he was from that area and used to run up and down the Mount in his very very very young days. 
This is not a Treaty settlement. It is obvious it is not a Treaty settlement because it was done very very quickly indeed. If it had been a Treaty settlement it might have taken quite some more time. 
Can I say to the people of Tauranga Moana that this is not the end of the matter. Obviously there is a lot more work to be done and we on this side of the House expect them to be knocking on our door some time after the next election. 
So thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. As I have been asked by the former member for the area to sit down I will take my seat. But once again I congratulate the Maori Affairs Committee on its good and hardy work.
Finlayson Christopher: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:15964] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will be very brief because I know it is the desire of the House that we vote on this bill before the dinner break. On behalf of the National Party I send very warm greetings to the people of Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranganui and Ngati Pukenga who have travelled from Tauranga to be with us today. I think they have seen a House that is basically bipartisan on this issue. They have witnessed some very dignified and statesmanlike oratory from people like my friend from the Maori Party and a very fine contribution albeit somewhat discursive and toward the end somewhat partisan from the previous speaker. A bipartisan approach is the kind of approach we have had to this legislation and the Minister’s oafish and incoherent outburst a few minutes ago does not really reflect the good team effort by all members of the House on the Maori Affairs Committee and during the Committee stage in trying to deal with this interesting issue. 
There are only a couple of points I want to make. The first is to note how fortunate we are as members of Parliament to be able to look at these sorts of issues. We all know the Mount as it is known in Pakeha parlance but those of us who were on the select committee were truly privileged to get an insight into its history and to begin to understand something of what this issue was all about. Secondly I pay tribute to the member for Tauranga Bob Clarkson who was effective and caring on this issue. He is actually the one who in his practical way pushed changes to the wording. I can hear the New Zealand First members complaining about that because they do not always like the reality when it comes to Bob Clarkson. What we see is what we get and what we got in this case was very good indeed. He is the one who was interested and helped forge the changes to what is now clause 8(3) so that the language was less offensive. I think he is to be congratulated on that. 
That is really all I want to say. Amid the very partisan mentality we have in the House this year largely because the Government knows it is on the way out we have had a period when we have been able to be bipartisan and work well on this legislation. I enjoy working with the Labour members of the Maori Affairs Committee. They are good blokes. They are atypical when it comes to the Labour Party because they know the difference between acting in the public good and the national interest and in the partisan interests of the Labour Party. I say to the good people of Tauranga Moana who are here today that they have not got a Treaty settlement. We are not debating that at the moment largely because for 8 years this Government sat on its hands and did nothing in terms of Treaty settlements. But I promise them that an incoming National Government will deal with their Treaty settlement with zeal with idealism and with the same enthusiasm that has been exhibited in the way the House has dealt with the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill.
Turner Judy: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:15958] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call on the third reading of this important Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. United Future does not enjoy representation on the Maori Affairs Committee that has helped this bill through its passage to its third reading today so we have not been actively involved in a hands-on way. But we do appreciate what the bill accomplishes in securing into the future a resource that is well loved by all those who live near it. I have two children who live alongside the mountain and who have regularly taken on the physical challenges it provides for them to go to the top. One of the things about this landmark is that we can underestimate it. It looks an easy climb from the bottom but many a person has broken into a painful sweat trying to get to the top of it and it is always much more fun coming down. 
I say that because I think that when I talk about the opportunity to underestimate this land feature from here on in it would be unwise of people to underestimate the importance it has to local iwi. We congratulate them on what they have gained today. 
What happens now is that those who are charged with its administration will do that with the understanding that it is not theirs to own but for now anyway it is theirs to look after in a way that reflects the new obligations they have to those who will be trustees. It is a very good thing to be answerable to others on how we discharge these kinds of responsibilities. United Future congratulates iwi on the passage of this bill acknowledging that they are best placed to oversee this important taonga.
Clarkson Bob: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — Third Reading 
Clarkson Bob: Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:15955] 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I am pleased to talk on this bill because I am the MP for the area of course. From my house I overlook the Mount which is quite a sight. The people of Tauranga will be happy about the transfer of ownership of the Mount to the various Maori groups. They will be happy to hear that we will be able to walk or run on this landmark at no cost. 
I myself will explain to the people of Tauranga that this is not a Treaty settlement. There will be no commercial enterprises in the area and therefore the Maori groups will have no income. Because of that situation the Tauranga City Council will meet all maintenance costs and will cooperate with the different groups at different times on what needs to be done on the Mount. 
I need to mention something here which I do not really want to do but I will. Yesterday a member of New Zealand First congratulated me on participating in sorting out this bill. I thank him for that. I hope that his following remark—that this is the only thing I have done in this House—was not a clever remark and an attempt to take a swipe at me. I tell him to beware. His party leader has a bad record of getting into the sewer with smart-arse remarks as he did in the last election. If he gets dirty in the 2008 election in Tauranga I will be returning the compliment with remarks about undeclared money from Western Bay Finance and various amounts of money in brown paper bags from fishing people. In time New Zealand First will find out what I have been doing on the matters of leaky homes first-home buyers and building construction. Anyway back to the Mount deal. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Please. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: I am happy—[ 
Interruption 
] The remarks were justified because of a swipe at me. 
Let us go back to the Mount deal. I am happy that I was involved with this deal. It is unusual for members on all sides of this House to be heading in the same direction. It was obvious at the Maori Affairs Committee that all committee members were trying to get a lasting agreement. I applaud them for doing that. 
Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty have a wonderful history but there have been some wrongs in that history. These wrongs are gradually being rectified. I thank the various Maori groups in the Bay of Plenty for being patient. I look forward to more settlements ending with the satisfaction that we the Maori Affairs Committee and the Maori groups have achieved in this deal. This satisfaction has been achieved by all parties listening and debating in a progressive manner. I claim a small credit for getting a good result. All participating people deserve some credit for what they did in getting a good end result. 
I will not be an MP in that area after the next election but I will still go to the top of the Mount on Waitangi Day. I will continue to ask to be buried on the top and I want permission from the Maori owners.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Grey Base Hospital—Patient Safety 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Grey Base Hospital—Patient Safety 
[Volume:647;Page:15937] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Tony Ryall seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the safety of and risks to patients at the Grey Base Hospital and the decision to send a senior doctor from Middlemore Hospital to investigate patient safety. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence there must be a new situation of importance or a new development in the existing situation of sufficient importance in itself to warrant the debate being held. The decision to send a senior doctor from Middlemore Hospital to investigate patient safety is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of the Government. However this is merely the announcement of a decision to conduct an investigation and I do not believe that it requires the immediate attention of the House today. There will be other opportunities to debate the matter especially as the House is about to debate the financial reviews of Crown entities public organisations and State-owned enterprises this afternoon. The application is therefore declined.
Urgent Debates Declined — Grey Base Hospital—Patient Safety 
Urgent Debates Declined — Grey Base Hospital—Patient Safety 
[Volume:647;Page:15937] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Grey Base Hospital—Patient Safety 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Tony Ryall seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the safety of and risks to patients at the Grey Base Hospital and the decision to send a senior doctor from Middlemore Hospital to investigate patient safety. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence there must be a new situation of importance or a new development in the existing situation of sufficient importance in itself to warrant the debate being held. The decision to send a senior doctor from Middlemore Hospital to investigate patient safety is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of the Government. However this is merely the announcement of a decision to conduct an investigation and I do not believe that it requires the immediate attention of the House today. There will be other opportunities to debate the matter especially as the House is about to debate the financial reviews of Crown entities public organisations and State-owned enterprises this afternoon. The application is therefore declined.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:647;Page:15931] 
9.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What recent announcements has she made regarding funding for home-based support workers? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I am pleased to have recently announced that in Budget ‘08 this Labour-led Government will allocate an additional $46.5 million over 4 years to support injured New Zealanders affecting some 14000 claims a year. This additional money will fund non-agency providers of home-based support who are predominantly friends and family members of injured people who have given up parts of their own lives in order to care for them. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: How does this additional funding build on previous increases in funding for the home-based support sector? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: In February contracted home-support workers received a funding boost of an additional $25 million a year. Both of these increases ensure that carers’ pay rates are fair and they will also encourage more stability in the workforce. 
Pansy Wong 
: Is the Minister not aware of many complaints that home-based support workers are opting to exit the sector despite the so-called extra funding due to many of them not being able to comprehend the changes that were introduced to make them independent contractors? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The increase for non-contracted caregivers represents a substantial improvement on their rates of pay. It is designed particularly to improve low pay and to improve the retention of those workers in that sector.
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:647;Page:15929] 
7.  
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: How is the Government changing competition law to promote effective use of public investment in Crown companies? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The Government is announcing today our intention to amend the Commerce Act to allow State-owned enterprises and Crown research institutes to cooperate for mutual benefit under ministerial direction without being subject to the competition requirements in the Commerce Act. Although the Government recognises the general benefits of competition this proposal was targeted at areas where a collaborative approach would be in the public interest. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Can the Minister advise how the Commerce Act currently provides for interconnected companies to collaborate without breaching the competition provisions of the Act? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Act already allows interconnected private sector companies to work together as they are treated as a single entity under the Act. This essentially exempts them from the prohibitions against anti-competitive behaviour. The Government’s decision will see State-owned enterprises and Crown research institutes other than Meridian Energy Mighty River Power and Genesis Energy treated as interconnected bodies in terms of the Act. This is a very positive announcement in terms of the potential benefits of maximising cooperation within the public sector as currently occurs in the private sector.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:647;Page:15917] 
1. SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What action has the Government taken to support innovation and regional economic development? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Government has moved from the 1990s policy of treating innovation with disdain and ignoring it as something that only the market could provide to a point where innovation is now a vital part of this country’s economic transformation. In recent weeks for example I have announced up to $4 million for the Enterprising Partnerships Fund to the Waikato Innovation Park in Hamilton which is aimed at helping innovative business in agricultural technology agricultural engineering and the food-related sectors to become established and to grow in the Waikato and similarly up to $1.9 million for the Otago institute of design aimed at establishing an applied design research centre to provide design services research and education to business in that region and across New Zealand. 
Sue Moroney 
: How will the $4 million for the Waikato Innovation Park be used to help the Waikato and the nation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Up to $2 million of it will be available to support the construction of a new purpose-built building for the park and a further $2 million will be available for Innovation Waikato’s business development services. This funding will be matched by $2.4 million of cash contribution from the Hamilton City Council. It is an excellent example of how Government can work together in partnership with local communities even though the National Party by its interjections clearly does not like it. I would like to thank the member for her ongoing support and good efforts in bringing this partnership to fruition. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister concerned at the steady stream of manufacturers and processing plants closing their New Zealand operations particularly in rural communities and has he looked at the influence of our high interest rates and high dollar on these closures; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: For the past 20 years or so the number of New Zealanders employed in manufacturing has vacillated between 250000 and 300000 jobs. It is currently at about 270000 I think. That is a level of activity that although lower than most economies means that New Zealand has not been subjected to the hollowing out in commodity manufacture that has afflicted the various rust belts around other Western economies.
Tanczos Nandor: Points of Order — Yasus Afari—Presentation of Book 
Tanczos Nandor: Points of Order — Yasus Afari—Presentation of Book 
[Volume:647;Page:15917] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I beg your indulgence of my drawing the attention of the House to the fact that noted Rastafarian philosopher Yasus Afari is in the gallery. He has today presented a book on Rastafarian philosophy to this Parliament through you Madam Speaker. I wanted to bring the House’s attention to that fact.
Points of Order — Yasus Afari—Presentation of Book 
Points of Order — Yasus Afari—Presentation of Book 
[Volume:647;Page:15917] 
Points of Order 
Yasus Afari—Presentation of Book 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I beg your indulgence of my drawing the attention of the House to the fact that noted Rastafarian philosopher Yasus Afari is in the gallery. He has today presented a book on Rastafarian philosophy to this Parliament through you Madam Speaker. I wanted to bring the House’s attention to that fact.
Locke Keith: Motions — Earthquake—Sichuan China 
Locke Keith: Motions — Earthquake—Sichuan China 
[Volume:647;Page:15917] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That this Parliament extend its heartfelt sympathy to the Chinese Government and people following the catastrophic earthquake centred in Sichuan province which has killed at least 12000 people and destroyed the homes of hundreds of thousands of people; and is impressed by the large-scale mobilisation of relief teams to rescue those trapped in the rubble and to assist those in need. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:647;Page:15917] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Further to another agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to have authority to meet on the evenings of 15 and 22 May 2008. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:647;Page:15917] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Maori Affairs Committee to have authority to meet in Australia and with committees of the Australian Parliament from 26 to 30 May 2008 and to adopt such practices and procedures as are suitable for the conduct of the business of the meetings. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Motions — Earthquake—Sichuan China 
Motions — Earthquake—Sichuan China 
[Volume:647;Page:15917] 
Motions 
Earthquake—Sichuan China 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That this Parliament extend its heartfelt sympathy to the Chinese Government and people following the catastrophic earthquake centred in Sichuan province which has killed at least 12000 people and destroyed the homes of hundreds of thousands of people; and is impressed by the large-scale mobilisation of relief teams to rescue those trapped in the rubble and to assist those in need. 
Motion agreed to.
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:647;Page:15917] 
Wednesday 14 May 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of Select Committees 
Meetings 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Maori Affairs Committee to have authority to meet in Australia and with committees of the Australian Parliament from 26 to 30 May 2008 and to adopt such practices and procedures as are suitable for the conduct of the business of the meetings. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Further to another agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to have authority to meet on the evenings of 15 and 22 May 2008. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:15916] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Births Death Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time.
Fairbrother Russell: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:15912] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I want to take a short call on this matter to highlight the inconsistency of the National Party’s opposition to this bill. This bill of course is aimed at moving births deaths and marriages registration into the 21st century and the hallmark of the turn of the century has been the increase in the information age and the accessibility in electronic form of much data. The price of that of course has been a greater vigilance of privacy and one cannot have the ease of access through information technology without revising the barriers in order to protect privacy. So this bill seeks to achieve a greater degree of accuracy by facilitating the interdepartmental swapping of defined information so that the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages has an accurate register. 
At the heart of this bill is the search for accuracy. Of course that makes ironic the comment by the National Party members if one listened to them this evening—and as far as I can tell this seems to be summed up in the National Party’s view in the Government Administration Committee report when it could not agree on any changes to the bill—that the restrictions proposed in the bill will hamper academic and genuine genealogical research and other legitimate purposes for which access is needed to information on births deaths and marriages. Well let us just look at that. If the National members want to have an Act that continues to rely upon inaccurate information then the whole pyramid of academic research and genuine genealogical information is a house that is built on sand. It is a pyramid of no substance. What better basis could there be for academic research and genealogical analysis than accurate records? 
This bill simply moves the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act into the 21st century even though Sandra Goudie is still walking on the streets of the 18th century. This bill seeks to impose high levels of accuracy on the registrar-general and it recognises the effect of our information technology on the recording and exchanging of that information between the various Government agencies and individuals who possess it. The bill enables individuals to accurately describe aspects of their identity. It enables some individuals in sensitive occupations to suppress their details and it restricts the unlimited access of those with prurient interests. But the bill also opens up the right for individuals to give consent to further research and after 100 years of course it opens up the books entirely for proper research. 
So at the heart of this bill is a search for accuracy and that search for accuracy of course puts a lie to the National Party’s opposition when it wants to retain outdated and inaccurate records using the claim of academic freedom.
Simich Clem: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:15905] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: When the House was last debating this bill the Hon Darren Hughes was speaking. He has 6 minutes remaining. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Mr Deputy Speaker— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has according to my records spoken on this bill once. Does the member wish to speak again? 
Sandra Goudie 
: Yes. I seek leave to finish that part of the debate. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No you may seek leave to take another call if you wish. 
Sandra Goudie 
: I seek leave to take another call. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. I call Brian Connell.
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:15904] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time.
O'Connor Damien: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
O'Connor Damien: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:15885] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: I move  
That the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 22 July 2008 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Turner Judy: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:15883] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call in this first reading debate in support of the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill. As has been mentioned by previous speakers the bill is narrowly focused. It is an attempt to tidy up an approach to ensure that those who work on irregular days or who work irregular hours are able to negotiate successfully with their employers some way of retaining their public holidays by way transferring them to a more suitable opportunity. I think it is a little disingenuous of the National Party to criticise the need for an amendment bill. One would think that there is no public record of Acts put in place by a National Government that did not need further adjustment. 
One thing I do agree with a National speaker on is that one of the ongoing challenges facing us is the issue of improving productivity within New Zealand. United Future believes that if we are serious about improving productivity rates we need to address that in a working environment where conditions are fair and employment relations are constructive. We do thankfully live in a time when unions and employers are enjoying a more collaborative approach to industrial relations and it seems to United Future that this is an ideal time to look creatively at ways in which we can improve productivity in a way that is fair to everybody involved. 
We do have fewer public holidays now than we had historically. I agree with the Green member who talked about the fact that we need to be careful that we do not move into a situation where we have a number of days listed as public holidays but really have very little that is “public” about them. People are working such disjointed hours that people are allocated days off in a way that does not reflect the intention of a public holiday which is that families can get together and people can spend quality time with each other. I think we should make sure as we aim towards improved productivity that the exceptions this bill seeks to address remain just that—exceptions—and that we still enjoy public holidays that retain the meaning they always historically had. 
United Future is happy to support the first reading of this bill and we look forward to hearing back from the select committee.