edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
Brownlee Gerry: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
[Volume:649;Page:17972] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Standing Order 348(1) states: “A Minister may make a statement informing the House of some matter of significant public importance which requires to be brought to the House’s attention immediately.” We have seen the ministerial statement the Hon Annette King is proposing to make this afternoon and we ask who actually decides what is something that needs to be brought to the immediate attention of the House. If it were a letter to you asking for something to be brought to the attention of the House and therefore for there to be a snap debate you would make the decision about what was necessary as far as needing to bring a matter to the immediate attention of the House. You would also judge its significant public importance and further you would ask whether there had been a recent decision that relates to the Government. 
None of those tests would be met if this document were sent to you by way of a letter asking for a snap debate. The Commissioner of Police has been considering this matter for some 17 months. He has no immediate proposals to introduce any changes to the current situation. In fact all he is saying is that he is going to seek the opinions of MPs. Presumably he will write to every MP and ask what they think about the idea of using Tasers more generally in the future and what they think about the constraints the commissioner has put upon their use. Then one would assume he will collate that information and test the opinions of MPs—a very rare thing—against his own judgment. Why there is a necessity for a ministerial statement today of all days is a serious question. It should not only be addressed I think by the House; it would be interesting to have your ruling on what in terms of a ministerial statement qualifies for the immediate attention of the House.
Cullen Michael: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
Cullen Michael: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
[Volume:649;Page:17972] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In fact the issue is quite clear. That is a judgment for the Minister involved because Ministers determine whether they are going to make a ministerial statement. No leave is required; the Minister simply informs the House that he or she is going to make a ministerial statement. The only requirement is to try to let other parties know about the content of that statement in advance. I must say it is somewhat amusing to see a front-bench member of the Opposition complaining that a Minister brings a matter to the House which a Minister does not actually have to do in order to allow the House to express a view upon that matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it is for the Minister to decide when a ministerial statement should be made and it certainly has been for the purpose of being able to inform the House. I call the Hon Annette King.
Hide Rodney: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
Hide Rodney: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
[Volume:649;Page:17972] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister jumped to her feet at the same time as I did to raise a point of order. I would like to ask your guidance please on your interpretation of Standing Order 111 in the particular case. You stopped me yesterday from— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can I just perhaps stop the member now. I am very happy to consider his point of order but I did call in the interests of an orderly conduct of proceedings in this House the Hon Annette King.
King Annette: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
King Annette: Ministerial Statements — Taser Guns—Introduction 
[Volume:649;Page:17972] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I wish to make a ministerial statement pursuant to Standing Order 348.
Woolerton R Doug: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17969] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 In the 2 minutes remaining I want to say that New Zealand First likewise supports the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3). My colleagues have talked about the bill. I want to say that it is unfortunate that the meltdown of the finance companies has come at a time when we in New Zealand across the board are trying to encourage people to look at shares and deposits rather than property. It reminds me of an article I read some time ago that made a joke out of statements of that kind. It said: “We wish New Zealanders would invest more in things other than property.” and asked why New Zealanders did that. The answer was that it was because property very rarely turns itself into a Porsche 911 overnight. That pretty much sums up what this bill is about. It is trying to give more information to people who are trying to broaden their investments. It is a tragedy that those people who have done that have in recent times in some cases lost almost all of their life-savings. 
Debate interrupted.
Barker Rick: Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17963] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the Justice and Electoral Committee 
 consider the bill and that the committee report to the House by 9 September 2008. 
Motion agreed to.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:649;Page:17955] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I apologise to the House for intervening in the middle of this debate but the matter I am now to raise needs to be settled this evening. I seek leave pursuant to a unanimous decision in the Business Committee today for the debate on the questions that the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill be read a second and third time be taken together as a single debate of twelve 10-minute speeches. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:649;Page:17955] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I apologise to the House for intervening in the middle of this debate but the matter I am now to raise needs to be settled this evening. I seek leave pursuant to a unanimous decision in the Business Committee today for the debate on the questions that the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill be read a second and third time be taken together as a single debate of twelve 10-minute speeches. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17952] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Judicial Matters Bill be now read a first 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 first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Vote: Walking Access Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Walking Access Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17949] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Walking Access Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17929] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17929] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 226 and 227 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 5 be agreed to.
Locke Keith: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17922] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will not be supporting Chester Borrows’ amendment We discussed in our caucus the pros and cons of the issue. There are two sides to it. 
If we take the example of Alf Filipaina who is a Manukau city councillor a very committed person in both his council work and his police work and highly respected in the community we find that he is quite keen to continue in his dual role in that South Auckland community. We can argue that his work as a councillor better informs his work as a community constable and vice versa. There is an interaction there. He says that he absents himself from decisions on by-laws that he would have to implement. So we can argue an individual case and we can argue that there are some pluses in allowing the current situation to continue. 
But there are also problems and Dail Jones has just elucidated them a little. There can be a conflict of interest. The New Zealand Police is a disciplined organisation—and it has to be in the current context. Does a person obey police directives in a particular situation or does that person operate as an elected representative bringing to bear his or her own experience and own judgment on issues before the council? There can be conflict there. If we allow people to be councillors at the same time as they are police officers then obviously they can be deputy mayors or mayors. We can imagine an extreme situation where the mayor the deputy mayor and a couple of councillors who are all police officers deal with an issue on which there is a clear conflict of interest. 
I think it is right as others have mentioned to have a separation of powers between those who make the laws like members of Parliament people on councils and judges and those who implement the law such as the police force. So on balance the Greens have decided not to support Mr Borrows’ amendment. We accept that not allowing police officers to do both jobs infringes to a certain extent on their rights but the greater good is served by a separation of powers. It is true that police officers can continue to be community board members. People serving in that capacity do not make by-laws as I understand it but they can be engaged with the community and for people like Alf Filipaina there can be some cross-fertilisation of experience in that role rather than in a council role. I feel quite sad for people like Alf Filipaina. I understand that he can continue in his role under this law—that it would be grandparented. But in terms of the greater good and particularly given the role structure and disciplined nature of the police force I think it is important that there not be an overlap of roles. Thank you.
King Annette: Policing Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17917] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I believe that Chester Borrows’ contribution is worthy of a response. I need to say to the member that any caucus of any political party is able to further consider any view and any policy and to make its own decisions on those views and policies. Labour has a very democratic caucus. The members of our caucus considered the issue further and like every other party in Parliament they spoke to people in their own local communities. They spoke to serving police officers who do not agree that other police officers should be allowed to be councillors. They spoke to members of their communities. At the end of the day we run a democratic caucus and our caucus decided not to support that view. I think it was very uncharitable of the member to insinuate that a deal had been done with New Zealand First. That insinuation is totally untrue. No deal has been done with New Zealand First. Every party in this Parliament will make up its own mind on any issue and to say that a deal was done is incorrect. In fact the Labour caucus came to this view after a lot of consideration. 
It is worth reading to the Committee the Legislation Advisory Committee’s view on the issue which had a powerful impact on many Labour members’ points of view. The Legislation Advisory Committee is a very highly regarded committee that is consistently brought into the select committees and asked advice of and in most circumstances its advice is taken. The majority of the members of the Legislation Advisory Committee said they believe that there are “especially strong reasons to have a disqualification provision that applies specifically to police officers. In New Zealand police officers have particular standing within the community and are frequently reported in the local media where their statements carry considerable weight. If serving officers within the local community are also local councillors therefore they inevitably confront an ongoing conflict of interest. When they make public statements it will be difficult for the public to determine whether they are making those statements as police officers or as councillors. They are also likely to be able to use their position or at least be seen to be using their position to further their political interests. This is inherently undesirable and should be avoided.” 
The Legislation Advisory Committee recommended that a provision be inserted into the bill that a police officer who is elected as a mayor or a member of a territorial local authority should be required to resign from the police. That was a very powerful piece of advice given to the select committee and my colleagues as they always do listen carefully to advice make up their own minds and make their own decisions. The caucus has decided on further consideration that it could not support the status quo.
Robertson H V Ross: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17914] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The debate on Part 5 includes debate on schedules 3 through to 6.
King Annette: Policing Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17910] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Part 4 deals with modernising the New Zealand police force and putting in place modern employment arrangements. Part 4 supports the commissioner’s ability to employ a workforce with a range of skills powers and protections needed to meet current and future policing demands. 
In the main provisions in this part introduce modern human resource management processes to align the police human resources arrangements with the mainstream employment environment and shift internal disciplinary arrangements to a newly created code of conduct environment rather than carry over the old disciplinary inquiry system from the 1958 Act; and use language and provisions establishing police medical physical and psychological health standards and superannuation arrangements. 
Two of the most important parts of this part deal with the code of conduct and the old disciplinary inquiry system that was in place for disciplining police officers. Two strong recommendations from the commission of inquiry were to establish a code of conduct for our police and to change the old industrial relation regime in which our police service has worked for so many years to bring those in line with the mainstream employment environment that we have for the rest of the workers in New Zealand. These are very important changes. One of the complaints against the New Zealand Police has been the slowness in which it has been able to address disciplinary matters. Sometimes those matters have dragged on for years and have often left the public and the police frustrated by the mechanisms used under the old Act. This bill as I said modernises the workforce modernises employment relation arrangements and brings the New Zealand Police into the 21st century.
Robertson H V Ross: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17910] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This debate also includes schedule 2.
Borrows Chester: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17910] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I speak to Part 3 of this bill by saying that National restates its support for it. A number of matters will come before the Committee of the whole House that the police have sought to have addressed for some long time in order to bring the current policing regime into the modern era. There was wide consultation across the community and across the sector at the time that the legislation was proposed. In further parts of the bill—around Part 5—matters will be addressed probably this afternoon about which there will be some contention. But as far as Part 3 goes I say the National Party will be supporting it. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:649;Page:17906] 
9.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Is he considering privatising public polytechnics? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: No. Polytechnics are an important part of our tertiary education system. It is important that they work closely with the private sector stakeholders such as employers but the institutions themselves will and must remain in the public sector. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What reports has he seen on public-private partnerships in the education sector? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen proposals that suggest New Zealand should follow the Australian example and privatise educational infrastructure such as polytechnic facilities. That statement was made by yet another senior National Party member caught in an unorchestrated litany of truth. Of course National’s leader said that Mr Williamson was overexcited when he told us of National’s tolling plans. We are yet to hear what National thinks in terms of privatising polytechnics and other educational institutions. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why is the Minister so concerned about collaboration with the private sector when the Labour Government put $20 million per year into the Partnerships for Excellence programme in order to encourage partnerships between the private and tertiary sectors with the tertiary sector still owning the buildings and when one of the main beneficiaries of these Government-mandated private partnerships was the Owen G Glenn Building based at the University of Auckland business school? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member clearly cannot tell the difference between selling buildings and a partnership with the private sector to deliver certain kinds of services. For example just today the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology announced that its project manager won a 2008 Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics award for the development of TradeFIT which is a public-private sector partnership in relation to producing trade skills which the National Government tried to destroy. If the member does not understand the difference between that and flogging off the buildings then she really has a long way to go on the road towards becoming a credible education spokesperson.
Copeland Gordon: Citizens Initiated Referenda — Smacking Children 
Copeland Gordon: Citizens Initiated Referenda — Smacking Children 
[Volume:649;Page:17887] 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to move a motion without notice and without debate relating to the citizens initiated referenda petition. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? Yes there is.
Citizens Initiated Referenda — Smacking Children 
Citizens Initiated Referenda — Smacking Children 
[Volume:649;Page:17887] 
Citizens Initiated Referenda 
Smacking Children 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Pursuant to section 21 of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 I hereby inform the House that a petition has been received from Ms Sheryl Savill seeking a referendum on the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. This petition has been certified as correct by the Clerk of the House under section 18 of the Act. 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to move a motion without notice and without debate relating to the citizens initiated referenda petition. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? Yes there is.
Wilson Margaret: Citizens Initiated Referenda — Smacking Children 
Wilson Margaret: Citizens Initiated Referenda — Smacking Children 
[Volume:649;Page:17887] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Pursuant to section 21 of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 I hereby inform the House that a petition has been received from Ms Sheryl Savill seeking a referendum on the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. This petition has been certified as correct by the Clerk of the House under section 18 of the Act.
Motions — Olympic Games Beijing—New Zealand Team 
Motions — Olympic Games Beijing—New Zealand Team 
[Volume:649;Page:17887] 
Motions 
Olympic Games Beijing—New Zealand Team 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the House congratulate the athletes who competed and won medals at the Beijing Olympic Games and made this New Zealand’s most successful Olympic Games performance in over 20 years. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Motions — Olympic Games Beijing—New Zealand Team 
Cullen Michael: Motions — Olympic Games Beijing—New Zealand Team 
[Volume:649;Page:17887] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the House congratulate the athletes who competed and won medals at the Beijing Olympic Games and made this New Zealand’s most successful Olympic Games performance in over 20 years. 
Motion agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Statements — Television—Breach of Filming Rules 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Statements — Television—Breach of Filming Rules 
[Volume:649;Page:17887] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: During the last sitting period there appeared on Television One news an item that included shots of printed material on a member’s desk taken from the gallery over the shoulder of the member. I just draw members’ attention to this coverage in order to raise awareness of a clear breach of the rules of filming from the gallery so that members can adjust their behaviour in the Chamber accordingly. Material on members’ desks has been filmed despite the rules. As a result members will need to take care about the papers they bring into the Chamber.
Speaker’s Statements — Television—Breach of Filming Rules 
Speaker’s Statements — Television—Breach of Filming Rules 
[Volume:649;Page:17887] 
Tuesday 26 August 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Television—Breach of Filming Rules 
Madam SPEAKER 
: During the last sitting period there appeared on Television One news an item that included shots of printed material on a member’s desk taken from the gallery over the shoulder of the member. I just draw members’ attention to this coverage in order to raise awareness of a clear breach of the rules of filming from the gallery so that members can adjust their behaviour in the Chamber accordingly. Material on members’ desks has been filmed despite the rules. As a result members will need to take care about the papers they bring into the Chamber.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17009] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time.
Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17004] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 That is very generous of you Mr Deputy Speaker and very generous of the House because the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) is important legislation that needs to be properly aired. 
One of the things I wanted to speak about was the fact that it was Sir Owen Woodhouse who acknowledged in a piece he wrote entitled  
Rebuilding ACC Beyond 2000 
 that the “basic principles which support the accident scheme have been under the closest scrutiny for about 30 years both here and overseas.” His piece continues: “Except for the occasional ideologue they have been regularly approved during that long period. In Government circles for example they were expressly endorsed by Sir William Birch on 11th November 1991 and as recently as 2nd May 1995 by the Honourable Bruce Cliffe.” 
The concern that National has had today involves the excesses that Labour has gone to in terms of this legislation. If the amendments that Labour proposed to put in had been well thought-out equitable and not inconsistent then maybe we could have achieved a bipartisan approach to them. 
In my last few minutes of speaking time I want to express the fact that good employers such as New Zealand Steel—employers that took a very practical aspect and view towards accident compensation—were horrified by some of the things in this legislation. In relation to cover for work-related mental injury New Zealand Steel stated: “the proposals offer an increased level of cover but only to one group of levy payers—those funded by employers. This creates further inconsistencies in the recognition of a condition suffered by an individual.” 
When New Zealand Steel goes on to talk about personal injury caused by work-related gradual process it states: “The proposed changes remove all onus of proof from an individual … the ACC scheme should not be a default for what the New Zealand public health system cannot cope with.” That indeed is a very important and appropriate point to make. The company says it is virtually impossible to investigate a person’s non-work environment without encroaching on an individual’s right to privacy. 
Finally New Zealand Steel made the point about self-inflicted personal injuries and suicides. We heard time and time again about the awful incident involving the train driver and the mental injuries that he received. But if there happened to be a young woman with a child at that rail crossing who witnessed that horrific scene that young woman would not be covered under this legislation. That is why National will not support this legislation. It is inequitable it is inconsistent and as well as that it has been hopelessly costed in terms of the realities of the funding. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.
Simich Clem: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17004] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next speaker I want to apologise to Dr Paul Hutchison the speaker before the previous one. He was due to speak for another 4 minutes but because of an equipment malfunction that time was taken off him. I say to Dr Hutchison that he has 4 minutes remaining. I know that the member was just warming up and he is most welcome to take the remainder of his call now if he wishes to seek leave to do so. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to speak for another 4 minutes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Street Maryan: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Street Maryan: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16998] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. This bill continues to progress this Government’s commitment to a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme by making changes to cover for work-related injuries; to eligibility for and entitlement to weekly compensation; and to entitlement to and processes for vocational rehabilitation. 
The bill introduces cover for a mental injury caused by exposure to a sudden traumatic event in the course of employment. This is a major development for the scheme and brings New Zealand’s cover into line with the cover offered to workers in many other countries. The bill is not intended to provide cover for work-related mental injuries caused by a gradual process such as mental stress caused by work overload or the temporary distress that constitutes a normal response to trauma. 
The bill introduces changes to the provisions for work-related gradual process disease and infection to provide more clarity around whether cover is available and how it is determined and to remove some existing barriers to cover. It does this through amending the test of work-causation set out in the existing Act. The bill also introduces changes that allow greater flexibility to amend the list of occupational diseases provided in schedule 2. The bill updates the weekly compensation framework in order to improve access to weekly compensation particularly for seasonal and casual workers. It provides fairer and more straightforward weekly compensation for seasonal and casual employees through improving access to weekly compensation for people who are injured while temporarily between jobs. It allows earlier access to minimum weekly compensation for certain claimants and increases the rate of weekly compensation paid to potential earners. 
The bill also enhances the existing legislative provisions for vocational rehabilitation in order to provide better outcomes for claimants. The changes include removal of the existing age-limits for eligibility for vocational rehabilitation. The bill also addresses a number of other policy issues and improvements aimed at making the scheme clearer and more responsive to the needs of claimants. 
The Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) builds on the framework provided by the existing legislation to provide a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme for reducing the incidence and impact of personal injury. It enhances the scheme’s responsiveness to the needs of claimants. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16998] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16998] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Question agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16997] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is amazing how little can be said in 10 minutes and the previous speaker is an expert at it. He gave a description of everyone else’s policies but there was not a sentence about what he thinks about this bill from a policy perspective. However I am happy to take much less than 10 minutes to say how important this bill is for my constituency of Otaki. 
The Horowhenua and Kapiti area is looking for new transport initiatives to take place the most important of which is Transmission Gully and that is why I am in support of this bill. I believe that it provides a valuable tool in our toolkit so we are able to construct that important road but the fact that the bill also puts out longer-term plans to allow for the inclusion of public transport is also very very important. We need electrification of that railway line. It goes through to Waikanae at the moment but it needs to go right through to Palmerston North. The region has to take a holistic view of that issue. To build an expensive road like Transmission Gully we need to look at every option around. That is what this bill does. It gives us another option to look at as a region and I appreciate that enormously for our community. 
This week alone the preliminary investigation has come back showing the road as being $285 million cheaper than we thought it would be but there is still a gap between Crown funding and what the region will have to come up with. That is why this kind of legislation gives us that extra tool in the toolkit. I support it because we have to ensure we have modern 21st century transport for the Wellington region and this legislation will be welcomed by my constituents. That is why I wanted the opportunity to take a brief call in support of it.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:16980] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 In answering Mr Field’s question I said that Ministers must make decisions on residence policy. What I meant to say was that Ministers must make decisions on exceptions to residence policy. I omitted the word “exceptions”.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:16978] 
11.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What reports has he received about staff numbers at the Tertiary Education Commission? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I saw a report yesterday from the National spokesperson on tertiary education stating that staff numbers at the Tertiary Education Commission had ballooned so spectacularly that it was now “the poster child of Labour’s bureaucratic excess”. This is curious and at variance with the truth. The truth is that the number of staff at the Tertiary Education Commission is lower than the number it had in its first full year of operation. One wonders why the National Party is so unable to count. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Is he planning to cut the Tertiary Education Commission’s funding; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No. The Government has no plans to cut funding for the Tertiary Education Commission but the National Party does. Last week when cornered by an Auckland audience of parents asking how National would fund any policy in education Wayne Mapp told them that it would be through cuts to the Tertiary Education Commission. Even if those members abolished the Tertiary Education Commission in its entirety the savings would keep New Zealand’s education system running for just under 3 days a year. Like I said the National Party does not know how to count. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why should the public believe that he is not trying to set an all-time record for bureaucratic excess given that he told a select committee yesterday: “We haven’t finished hiring staff.” and that Budget 2008 buys 15 new extra bureaucrats over and above the 341 already allowed for not to mention the 300 percent of new money for more and more consultants and contractors? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are not 341 people working at the Tertiary Education Commission and there are not 341 plus 15. There are 287. Yesterday there were 287 tomorrow there will be 287 and in the first year of its operation there were more than 287. That is a reduction—get it? Why does the member always want to add GST several times to the truth? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table a reply to a supplementary question on the estimates for 2008-09 which— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is.
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:16976] 
9.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What recent reports has he received on primary health care? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have seen a report that quotes the National spokesman on health Tony Ryall as saying “What patients will want to know is that the fees they pay are reasonable and will not rise unchecked. For this reason we will maintain a GP fee review process”. That is the exact opposite of a claim he made last September when he said “We don’t support Labour’s fees control system. We’ll be knocking it on the head.” 
Lesley Soper 
: What benefits have resulted from the increased investment by the Government in primary health care? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: A very great deal of benefits. Smoking rates are the lowest in New Zealand’s recorded history nine out of 10 patients rate the health of their child as excellent or very good primary health care costs in New Zealand have decreased and in the past 12 months just 1.7 percent of adults and 1 percent of children reported cost as a barrier to seeing a general practitioner. This strategy has been an undeniable success and now like so many other Labour policies the National Party is adopting it. The question remains as to whether National members could be trusted to honour that if they were ever in office.
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:16976] 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 Madam Speaker my question is to the Minister of Health and asks what recent reports he has received on primary health care. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In raising this point of order I wonder whether you would refer to Speaker’s ruling 54/3 which I think gets as close as I can find in the Speakers’ rulings to dealing with the matter I am about to raise. Ms Soper has just stood up to ask a question. She is wearing a badge emblazoned with the word “Labour”. It raises the question as to whether the blazer is an object that is being brought into the House as a visual display. It has no parliamentary crest and no authorisation on it so it clearly contravenes the Electoral Finance Act. That I would suggest trivialises the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That would be a matter for others to determine in the context of this House. It seems to me the matter is not contrary to any of the Standing Orders. Lesley Soper please ask your question again.
Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:16967] 
3.  
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Is he satisfied with the State Services Commission’s monitoring of the performance of other Government departments? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 In general yes. 
Heather Roy 
: How can he be satisfied when the killer of the 20-year-old woman mentioned in the news was able to give a false name in court and have the judge believe that he was a first-time offender when in fact he was a police informer in the witness protection scheme and had a string of serious convictions dating back to 1997 that should have seen him locked up and a young life saved? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There are serious issues that underlie this case and we are applying to vary the suppression orders that limit what the media can presently say. The reason those suppression orders exist relates to the safety of people and the member ought to await the outcome of those processes rather than speculate in ways that can be harmful in a serious way to the interests of people. 
Heather Roy 
: Why has the Minister not released the report on Jonathan Alan Barclay which he has been sitting on all year and which shows that both the police and the Department of Corrections knew that man’s true identity—in fact everyone knew but the judge? When will he release it and stop being part of this despicable cover-up? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Rather than suppressing it I think that on the day of or the day following its arrival with Ministers the Minister of Police took it to the family of the young woman who had so tragically died. We are not suppressing it but there are already suppression orders— 
Hon Annette King 
: It’s not a year. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —and it is not a year. There are suppression orders currently in force not from the State Services Commission and not from any arm of the Government but from the courts. Those suppression orders prevent the publication of that report in the form that it was presented to us. If we were to edit that report in full compliance with those suppression orders it would be largely meaningless to those people who read it. Accordingly in order for us to be more transparent not less we are applying to the court to vary those suppression orders so that we can tell people more than we are currently able to tell them.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:648;Page:16963] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No. I think actually that doing something about global warming is slightly more important than doing something about trout.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:648;Page:16963] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next week priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill and to the first readings of the Judicial Matters Bill and the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Noting that item 28 on the Order Paper is the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill a bill that we have asked the Leader of the House about on numerous occasions it now appears that another bill on the Order Paper is rapidly heading in that direction—that bill being the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. We are wondering whether the Leader of the House might indicate whether there is a point at which those two bills might cross over. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No. I think actually that doing something about global warming is slightly more important than doing something about trout.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:648;Page:16963] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Noting that item 28 on the Order Paper is the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill a bill that we have asked the Leader of the House about on numerous occasions it now appears that another bill on the Order Paper is rapidly heading in that direction—that bill being the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. We are wondering whether the Leader of the House might indicate whether there is a point at which those two bills might cross over.
Obituaries — Howard Neill Austin MBE 
Obituaries — Howard Neill Austin MBE 
[Volume:648;Page:16963] 
Thursday 26 June 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Howard Neill Austin MBE 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 24 June 2008 of Howard Neill Austin MBE who represented the electorate of Hobson from 1975 to 1978 and that of the Bay of Islands from 1978 to 1987. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Howard Neill Austin MBE 
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Howard Neill Austin MBE 
[Volume:648;Page:16963] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 24 June 2008 of Howard Neill Austin MBE who represented the electorate of Hobson from 1975 to 1978 and that of the Bay of Islands from 1978 to 1987. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:648;Page:16963] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next week priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill and to the first readings of the Judicial Matters Bill and the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Kedgley Sue: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17229] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I will start my contribution by saying that the Green Party is absolutely delighted to be supporting this Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill. We had almost got to wondering whether this day and this legislation would ever arrive. It has arrived late in the year at something of the eleventh hour. Nevertheless it has arrived and we are hopeful that with the goodwill and support of this Parliament it will be passed through in this Parliament as swiftly as possible. 
We are aware that librarians and writers put together an excellent proposal for reform way back in November 2000. The Government has finally acted on that proposal and we have here a bill that will entrench the Authors’ Fund scheme in its own stand-alone legislation which authors have been calling for for decades and which the Green Party wholeheartedly supports. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17221] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Management Amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time.