edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Worth Richard: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12599] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 As you have commented Mr Chair this is a very narrow debate on Part 2 of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill. But as we look at these changes that have been made to the District Courts Act consequent upon the planned passage of Part 1 we would do well to remind ourselves that the courts in New Zealand are not established by royal prerogative. They are not established by convention. They have a very pure statutory base. In the case of the District Courts it is a base established by the District Courts Act 1947. 
Clause 6 takes away a jurisdiction that the District Court had in respect of various crimes against public order in the Crimes Act. That leaves remaining for the jurisdiction of the District Court in connection with crimes against public order only two offences. The first offence relates to oaths to commit offences—a rather curiously named crime. But in effect what happens in terms of that offence-creating provision is to set a penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment for people who administer or who are present or who consent to the administration of oaths purporting to bind others to commit any offence. 
So in summary I say that it is basically a “blood brother” offence whereby people get together and swear to take part in criminal activity and that offence remains. It remains as part of one of the crimes against public order. The other is section 90 of the Crimes Act which deals with riotous damage. When one sees what is then left for the jurisdiction of the High Court one finds that it is a bit of a hotchpotch of crimes against public order that continues. So there are offences like inciting to mutiny like espionage like communication of official information that is wrongful like an old offence called forcible entry and detainer like piracy like slave dealing and finally like a relatively newly created offence in section 98A of the Crimes Act that deals with participation in criminal gangs. 
So there it is. Part 2 is a modest part that is in effect a machinery provision containing consequential outcomes that if Part 1 is passed will see those jurisdiction provisions removed for the District Court its officers and the juries that sit in judgment on criminal activity in that lower court.
Finlayson Christopher: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12598] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I certainly hope it is not trifling with the Chair when I say I agree with you that this is a very narrow point and I think I can be very brief on behalf of the National Party in addressing Part 2 because it deals simply with amendments to other enactments and indeed there is but one—an amendment to the District Courts Act 1947. 
Part 2A of the District Courts Act sets up the criminal jurisdiction of that court in respect of indictable offences and it was inserted in May 1981. Section 28A sets out the extent of the jurisdiction conferred on the District Court under this part and I am not going to go through that section in any detail. Suffice it to say it confers on the District Court a jurisdiction to try certain indictable offences and these are more particularly referred to in schedule 1A of the District Courts Act and in Part 1 of schedule 1A are the offences we are dealing with this afternoon. As can be seen from clause 6 it is proposed that the items relating to sections 82 to 85 of the Crimes Act in Part 1 of schedule 1A be repealed and of necessity where one deals with the proposals in Part 1 it follows that the offences be struck out of Part 1 of schedule 1A of the District Courts Act. 
So that is all that needs to be said about clause 6. It is a logical clause and of course if one supports the repeal of the seditious offences legislation if one supports Part 1 then—unless one is a complete moron—one has to support clause 6.
Burton Mark: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12590] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will take just a short call because this is a Committee stage and I think it is appropriate to respond quickly to a couple of Ron Mark’s points. 
Firstly the member quite properly raises the question as to why this matter is on the Order Paper at all at the moment. The answer to that is quite simple: it is because this Government has set about clearing up years and years of neglect by the National Government which never advanced the work of the Law Commission. Endless piles of work was done but then nothing happened to it. This Government has set about not only tidying up the backlog but getting on with new referrals and seeing that work progress through and something being done with it. I think that explains it but the member raised a very fair question. 
Secondly the reason it is now appropriate to look at what is indeed as the member said—and I made reference to it in my own earlier remarks—law that has its genesis in very ancient law in both England and more recently New Zealand is that it has proven to be no longer appropriate on our statute book. There is better legislation that suits the purpose of providing a response to any such offences. That is the considered view that the Law Commission has offered to Parliament. It is why I think the legislation enjoys considerable support. 
The member quite properly raised both of those points of concern in his contribution.
Horomia Parekura: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Horomia Parekura: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12575] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to point out that the Maori members in the Labour Party have supported this bill going to the select committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order; it is a debating point.
Woolerton R Doug: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12571] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill going to a select committee. In doing so we are saying that in this country not only is it important for justice to be seen to be done but also it is important that everybody in society knows where to go to seek justice and redress in any matter of wrongdoing. People need to understand that where they do that to a degree they will have some sort of protection under the law. 
We in New Zealand First also believe—and we have spoken about it many times—that the law does not confine itself just to the letter of the law. We believe that people should understand the protocols that in many instances guide people in jobs of responsibility in our country. We believe it is important that people live up to their moral obligations as well as living up to the letter of the law. We cannot always rely just on the letter of the law. If we were to do so our courts would be jammed full of people seeking redress over petty matters. So we think it is most important if our society is to work properly that when there is wrongdoing and someone within an organisation sees that something is seriously amiss—and often it is an employee—that person knows not only what to do but also where to go in order to redress the situation. 
New Zealand First would like to see this bill go to a select committee. We would like the people of New Zealand to have their right and proper chance to submit on this issue and we would like to hear what they say.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:12568] 
10.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What does he consider to be the three most important developments he has progressed as Minister of Immigration? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Immigration is essential to New Zealand’s economic transformation and contributes significantly to our evolving national identity. To support this the Government has been progressing a major change programme across immigration operations policy and legislation. This will help us to deliver enhanced skills security and settlement outcomes. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Which of those developments does he consider to be his greatest achievement and why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: We will leave that for the public to judge while we get on and do the work. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What challenges remain to be solved by him as the Minister of Immigration if any? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The department is always seeking to self-improve. No organisation that deals with the volume of work that immigration does—nearly half a million decisions each year for over two million border crossings—will get it right all the time. My focus has been on improving the underlying systems that will generate increased performance over time. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How much as Minister did he personally contribute to those claimed achievements? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I said earlier I am happy to let the public judge that as I am sure the member was when he was the Associate Minister of Immigration in 1999. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What reports has the Minister seen about how his achievements as a Minister compare with those of say the Hon David Parker as the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: All I can say is that the member does not get out enough. 
Darren Hughes 
: In explaining Government policy around the country has the Minister been forced to leave any public events via a lavatory window? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have no recollection of that. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister share our view that removing the Immigration Service from under the auspices of the Department of Labour and setting up a separate immigration service would be a very significant development indeed? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: While undoubtedly being significant it may not assist good labour market outcomes.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:12563] 
7.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: How will the recently introduced Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be of benefit to recreational boaties? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The bill allows the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance to allocate fuel excise revenue received from pleasure boat users to activities such as maritime search and rescue boating safety education and maritime safety services. For too long organisations like the Royal New Zealand Coastguard Federation have had to rely heavily on donations to do their work. This move is good news for recreational boaties and the organisations that provide a safety service to them. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Why is this of benefit to recreational boaties? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Pleasure boat users have not received a refund on excise duty since the days of Sir Robert Muldoon when he discontinued it in the 1970s. Now a source of funding is available specifically to meet the cost of well-founded boating safety measures. The recreational boating community will see a benefit from the excise duty it pays and I think this addresses what has been an inequitable situation. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that her answer has a familiar ring about it and will she therefore confirm that what is being proposed in the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is in fact New Zealand First policy? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes it does have a familiar ring to that member and to New Zealand First because it is in their transport policy and I know that that is one of the reasons why this bill has strong support from New Zealand First.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:12561] 
4.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What reports has he received about the success of the Operation Ark programme? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I have received the 3-year progress report for Operation Ark which started in June 2004 to protect populations of whio or blue duck; orange-fronted parakeet; yellowheads; and bats in South Island beech forests from possible extinction. I am pleased to advise the House that this report reveals spectacular results from the work done by the Department of Conservation. The risk of extinction of these populations has been reversed with all populations surviving major outbreaks of predators. For example there has been an increase of over 200 percent in blue duck numbers. 
Jill Pettis 
: What other measures has the Labour-led Government taken to protect New Zealand’s unique biodiversity? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: In February 2000 the Prime Minister released the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy and in 2002 the Government provided a package of funds to implement the highest priority projects in the strategy. The funding which was $184 million over the first 5 years provides protected-species management in mainland islands kiwi sanctuaries weed and pest control and biosecurity measures. At the end of the 5 years the Department of Conservation base-lined the biodiversity funding and this was increased by a further $33.5 million per annum.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:12558] 
2.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any recent reports on the take-up of KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The last formal report was on 9 October when nearly 213000 Kiwis were enrolled in KiwiSaver. Of those nearly 102000 actively chose a provider and went directly to a scheme to enrol 67000 actively chose to join KiwiSaver and enrol via their employer and 44000 new employees were automatically enrolled. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen any recent international reports on the benefits of superannuation schemes such as KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. Last week the Boston Consulting Group found that the growth in personal wealth in Australia was largely due to Australia’s superannuation system. I have also seen a report from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research trying to claim that New Zealand does not have a savings problem due to a booming but unquantified informal economy. That is at odds with the rise in household debt decline in savings rates as measured by public indicators current account deficit and net international investment position. But an unmeasurable hidden economy somehow explains our savings problem completely away! 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us how much money actually went into KiwiSaver accounts on 1 October what proportion of it was the Government start-up payments or subsidies and what proportion of it was actually contributions from new members? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sorry; I do not have those numbers in front of me. There would be quite limited Government start-up payments as of 1 October. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen any reports suggesting that the KiwiSaver scheme should be changed significantly? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have seen various and usually conflicting reports that suggest scrapping all or parts of KiwiSaver and suggest that the provision for retirement savings in New Zealand is too generous. Those reports nearly all come from Bill English and John Key.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Australia—President of the Senate 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Australia—President of the Senate 
[Volume:643;Page:12557] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Senator the Hon Alan Ferguson President of the Senate Parliament of Australia is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed. 
The Hon Alan Ferguson accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Visitors — Australia—President of the Senate 
Visitors — Australia—President of the Senate 
[Volume:643;Page:12557] 
Tuesday 23 October 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—President of the Senate 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Senator the Hon Alan Ferguson President of the Senate Parliament of Australia is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed. 
The Hon Alan Ferguson accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
King Annette: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — First Reading 
King Annette: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12551] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 When I was last speaking in the first reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill I was pointing out that even with the Act’s protections whistle-blowing carries some personal risks to employees. But we all know that silence is not in the public interest. 
Measures in this bill are designed to give more substance to the Act’s protection. They include the Ombudsman assisting organisations to keep confidentiality of disclosers expanding the Act to protect volunteers of information in support of an existing disclosure of serious wrongdoing expanding protection to people who reasonably but mistakenly believe they are disclosing serious wrongdoing and clarifying that disclosers are not excluded from the Act merely because they did not refer to the Act by name when disclosing. 
Further technical non-compliance with the Act’s processes for whistle-blowing will no longer prevent an employee from coming within the Act’s protection. An example of this change would be an employee say at a Wanganui Crown institute blowing the whistle on two staff who were burying toxic waste in riverbed shingle. Under the internal procedures the employee should first disclose to the human resources manager but if instead he or she discloses to the general manager he or she still comes within the Act’s protection despite technical non-compliance with one of the process steps in section 7 of the Act. 
In summary this bill is designed to improve aspects of the Protected Disclosures Act. It gives the Ombudsman an enhanced coordinating and helping role. As a result it should be easier for whistleblowers to bring serious wrongdoing to light and for organisations to investigate effectively. I think it is a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Vote: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12551] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Bill read a second time.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:12520] 
11.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What reports has he received on the likely economic impact of the emissions trading system? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I have recently received and released an independent report on the emissions trading scheme prepared by the economic consultancy firm Infometrics. The report concludes that the macroeconomic impact of New Zealand’s complying with our international commitments around greenhouse gas emission reductions as represented by a variety of indicators is very small. This is consistent with previous reports indicating that the impact on the size of the New Zealand economy under the Kyoto Protocol over the first 5 years would be negligible. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Will emissions trading reduce emissions? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes. The report also confirms this. Infometrics estimates that significant reductions in emissions will occur in New Zealand under an emissions trading regime. It estimates that during the first commitment period the emissions deficit would decrease from around 9 million tonnes per annum to about 6 million tonnes per annum. That figure—as was expressly stated in the report—is before taking into account avoided deforestation and cost-effective agricultural mitigation opportunities. The report also assessed the cost of reducing emissions through an emissions trading system compared with the Government just going out and buying emission reductions offshore and found that it was cheaper to do it through an emissions trading scheme. It also confirms our view that under a Labour-led Government the economy will continue to grow. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that the emissions trading scheme will ultimately result in increased power prices—and there is already a lot of concern in society over the levels of current prices—can the Minister advise how far work has proceeded on the compensation package that has been proposed to assist low-paid people on fixed incomes? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We have said there will be two components to that package an important part of which will actually be helping people to reduce their electricity consumption rather than just paying them to consume the same amount at higher prices. We have said previously that our decisions on this package will be finalised before the emissions trading legislation is finalised.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:12518] 
9.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What reports has she received on the number of workplace stoppages since the enactment of the Employment Relations Act 2000? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education)  
on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: The Minister has recently received a departmental report comparing work stoppages under the Labour-led Government’s Employment Relations Act with the number under National’s Employment Contracts Act of the 1990s. It shows that the average rate of work stoppages has dropped by 21 percent under the Employment Relations Act the average rate of working days lost has reduced by one-third and wage losses have dropped by almost 50 percent. Those results do not even take into account the fact that there are 362000 more New Zealanders employed today than there were under the previous National Government. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports concerning the Employment Relations Act? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes the Minister has seen two reports. The first states: “Under National expect quite significant changes. There was nothing wrong with the Employment Contracts Act.” A second quote states: “Broadly speaking we weren’t planning to make major changes … we haven’t argued for some time that we would go … back to the Employment Contracts Act”. Both of those conflicting statements unfortunately come from the Leader of the Opposition John Key. Once again we can see the billboards across the country demonstrating that Mr Key cannot hold one view for very long. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Will the Minister also confirm that Statistics New Zealand has today released results that show that labour productivity growth since 2000 is about half what it was prior to Labour taking office— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s because low-skilled people have been getting jobs you silly member! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Those sorts of comments lead to disorder. If the member does it again he will be asked to leave the Chamber. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Will the Minister also confirm that Statistics New Zealand has also today released results that show that labour productivity growth since 2000 is about half what it was prior to Labour taking office and now puts us in the bottom quarter of the OECD in this area? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member raises an interesting point because of course the very high levels of unemployment in the 1990s did tend to concentrate productivity. There has been a massive increase in the number of people in employment but most of them have come in through entry points that are low-skilled positions and of course we end up with a lower level of productivity. As Mr Lockwood Smith would know the challenge for all of us now is not just to get people into employment but to walk them up the training ladder to walk them up the skills ladder to walk them up the productivity ladder. That is the challenge before us.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:12505] 
1. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on the number of people benefiting from the very low-cost access scheme? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: There are now 1039655 New Zealanders enrolled in the scheme which keeps general practitioners’ fees at $15.50 for adults $10.50 for young people aged between 6 and 17 years and free for under-sixes. That is over 1 million New Zealanders who pay under $15.50 while the rest pay an average of $25. On average the cost of a general practitioner visit has halved under the Labour-led Government. The question on my mind is whether the National Party is celebrating this or is it intending to take charges back to where they were and beyond? 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of initiatives that will threaten lower doctors’ fees? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I have—the National Party’s secret plan to let the market set the price for people seeing a doctor which will drive many people away from getting health advice. John Key and his friends think it is OK for something like health to be a market commodity. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What action is the Minister taking to ensure that the Government’s success in providing access to affordable health-care is extended to cover accident and medical services in centres such as Porirua where staff shortages are threatening after-hours services to north Wellington Porirua and Kapiti coast residents? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: This action or any action would be of course the responsibility of the district health board. After-hours services have historically been a problem as people do not get ill between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. all the time—I appreciate that. But this Government has added 4000 nurses and 1200 doctors to rebuild the health sector decimated by the previous administration and all of those additions will help a multitude of health services. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Minister seen any report that cheaper doctors’ visits actually have a positive effect even for people who do not necessarily need to see a doctor? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As a matter of fact I have. When the Consumers Price Index figures came out this week inflation figures were lower than what just about everyone had estimated. Treasury said: “It was mainly because the effect of increased Government subsidies for health and education was greater than expected.” Inflation in the September quarter was 0.5 percent. Treasury said: “Without the increases in Government subsidies the quarterly increase in CPI would have been at 0.9 percent.” Even the meanest-minded members of the Opposition must realise that without the Government paying these subsidies interest rates would rise mortgage payments would rise and people would be much worse off which of course they would be if the National Party health policy was implemented.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:642;Page:12505] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is not media commentary that determines the Government’s business but the Leader of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Are there any further comments? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I seek leave for the sitting hours of the House on Thursday 25 October to be from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Locke Keith: Business Statement 
Locke Keith: Business Statement 
[Volume:642;Page:12505] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was listening closely to the Leader of the House and he did not mention the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill which was going to be discussed this week. I wonder whether it is going to be discussed next week or is the Government a bit worried about the public reaction against that bill?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:642;Page:12505] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House progress will be made on the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill the Human Tissue Bill the Oaths Modernisation Bill the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill and the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. The third reading of the Income Tax Bill will be the last item of business on Thursday with the intention being that the House should rise at 5 p.m. so that members may attend the farewell function for the Clerk of the House David McGee.
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12504] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I would like to take just a brief call in relation to new clause 8 which as Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson states inserts a new section that provides that an investigation or determination of the Employment Relations Authority cannot be “challenged appealed against reviewed quashed or called in question in any court.” I appreciate that the Minister has introduced this Supplementary Order Paper with the intention of ensuring that matters in relation to flexible working hours do not actually reach the level of the Supreme Court but my concern is really in relation to the rule of law the notion of natural justice and the precedent that this sets for an authority—a lay authority for that matter which does not have to act judicially—to unilaterally make a decision that simply cannot be challenged. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12503] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 7 as amended 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 7 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12503] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12503] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to omit subclause (2) be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12503] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 6A as amended 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 6A as amended agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12502] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 149 in the name of Sue Kedgley to section 69AAJ be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12502] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of Hon Ruth Dyson to omit section 69AAI and substitute new sections 69AAI 69AAIA and 69AAIB be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12502] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to omit section 69AAH and substitute new section 69AAH be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12502] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Agreement agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to omit section 69AAF be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12501] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to insert new section 69AAEA be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12501] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; United Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to section 69AAE(2) and (3) be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12501] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to section 69AAE(1) be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12501] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to the heading to section 69AAE be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12500] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to section 69AAC be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12500] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to omit section 69AAB(2)(b) and (c) and substitute new paragraph (b) be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12500] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to omit section 69AAB(2)(a) and substitute new paragraph (a) be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12500] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to section 69AAA be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12499] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to omit section 69AA(d) and substitute new paragraph (d) be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12499] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to section 69AA(c) be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12499] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
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. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to omit section 69AA(a) be agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12499] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12485] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 as amended 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 3 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12485] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12485] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12485] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson be agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12485] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.