edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
[Volume:638;Page:8090] 
3.  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: How much land held by State-owned enterprises has been sold since 2000 and what is the total value of any such land that has been sold into foreign ownership? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 I am advised that Contact Energy was given a right of first refusal—granted in 1996— for over 381 hectares of State-owned enterprise land which it is in the process of exercising. I understand that it is proposed that at least some of this land be used for roading and geothermal power generation purposes. The land that this commitment relates to has a market value of $9.261 million. Other than that I am advised that approximately 33000 hectares of State-owned enterprise land has been sold since 2000; none of this land has been sold to foreign investors. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister satisfied that Landcorp’s practice of selling land with the sole purpose of maximising returns to the Crown is aligned to the will of the New Zealand public which is growing increasingly nervous about the loss of significant land to foreign investors; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The short answer to the member’s question is no I am not satisfied that Landcorp’s policy is properly aligned to the wish of New Zealanders. But I would put it more in the terms of the conservation values recreation values the retention of some coastal areas in public ownership and the need to have more reserves rather than the question of foreign ownership. Actually I think my colleague the Minister of Finance Dr Michael Cullen if he were asked this question would say that some of the things one can wrap around foreign ownership are a lot tighter than when land is sold to New Zealanders. He could well be right and it may well be that some of the lessons from that can be imported back into the Landcorp sale processes. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Have changes to the Overseas Investment Act reduced the amount of land being sold by State-owned enterprises into foreign ownership; if not is he at all concerned that the changes have not worked to ensure the Kiwi way of life is not being flogged off to the highest bidder? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is a bit hard to reduce from nothing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could the Minister just amplify his answer. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I did say in my substantive answer that none had been sold into foreign ownership from State-owned enterprises. If I am asked whether we can reduce that I suppose we could. We could have Landcorp out there buying from people who have bought in the private sector but I think that that is probably not really its role at the moment. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How much additional land does the Minister think the State-owned enterprise New Zealand Post will need to buy in order to get its chain of plastic tiki - selling stores across the country under the banner Real Aotearoa? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: None.
Ryall Tony: Points of Order — Urgent Question—High Court Ruling on Labtests Auckland 
Ryall Tony: Points of Order — Urgent Question—High Court Ruling on Labtests Auckland 
[Volume:638;Page:8087] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I hope you will indulge me with this but we have just received the information that the High Court has ruled that the laboratory contract awarded by the district health boards to Labtests Auckland has been declared invalid. It would be my intention at the end of question time to ask an urgent question of the Minister of Health. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I suggest you seek leave at the time to do that. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I will seek leave to do so at the time.
Points of Order — Urgent Question—High Court Ruling on Labtests Auckland 
Points of Order — Urgent Question—High Court Ruling on Labtests Auckland 
[Volume:638;Page:8087] 
Points of Order 
Urgent Question—High Court Ruling on Labtests Auckland 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I hope you will indulge me with this but we have just received the information that the High Court has ruled that the laboratory contract awarded by the district health boards to Labtests Auckland has been declared invalid. It would be my intention at the end of question time to ask an urgent question of the Minister of Health. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I suggest you seek leave at the time to do that. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I will seek leave to do so at the time.
Cullen Michael: Motions — Zimbabwe—Deteriorating Situation Under Mugabe Regime 
Cullen Michael: Motions — Zimbabwe—Deteriorating Situation Under Mugabe Regime 
[Volume:638;Page:8087] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There is an agreement amongst whips that leave is sought for these matters. My office was notified that leave would be sought for a non-debatable motion. Actually the member did not seek to move it at all. If I want to be picky I would point out that he merely sought leave to table the motion. He has yet to seek leave to actually move it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is true actually. So I think we should start again. John Key was seeking leave for a non-debatable motion.  
Motion agreed to.
Motions — Zimbabwe—Deteriorating Situation Under Mugabe Regime 
Motions — Zimbabwe—Deteriorating Situation Under Mugabe Regime 
[Volume:638;Page:8087] 
Tuesday 20 March 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Zimbabwe—Deteriorating Situation Under Mugabe Regime 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That this House condemns the gross acts of violence committed against leaders of the parliamentary opposition in Zimbabwe; deplores the failure of the Mugabe regime to respect human rights or uphold the rule of law; and calls upon those nations that have previously given protection and support to the Mugabe regime to join the rest of the international community in calling for an end to the violence and a move to parliamentary democracy in that country 
. The National Party— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It was conveyed through the member’s office that leave was sought for a non-debatable motion. That means that no speeches are given by anybody; the motion is moved and then put. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: When the member moved he did not qualify it but that was presumably the assumption that the member has sought the leave on. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There is an agreement amongst whips that leave is sought for these matters. My office was notified that leave would be sought for a non-debatable motion. Actually the member did not seek to move it at all. If I want to be picky I would point out that he merely sought leave to table the motion. He has yet to seek leave to actually move it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is true actually. So I think we should start again. John Key was seeking leave for a non-debatable motion.  
Motion agreed to.
Key John: Motions — Zimbabwe—Deteriorating Situation Under Mugabe Regime 
Key John: Motions — Zimbabwe—Deteriorating Situation Under Mugabe Regime 
[Volume:638;Page:8087] 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That this House condemns the gross acts of violence committed against leaders of the parliamentary opposition in Zimbabwe; deplores the failure of the Mugabe regime to respect human rights or uphold the rule of law; and calls upon those nations that have previously given protection and support to the Mugabe regime to join the rest of the international community in calling for an end to the violence and a move to parliamentary democracy in that country 
. The National Party— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It was conveyed through the member’s office that leave was sought for a non-debatable motion. That means that no speeches are given by anybody; the motion is moved and then put. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: When the member moved he did not qualify it but that was presumably the assumption that the member has sought the leave on.
Harawira Hone: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Harawira Hone: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8303] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson. I am concerned about the note about changing unanimous verdicts to majority verdicts. Is that in Part 3? 
Hon Mark Burton 
: That’s Part 4 Hone. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Is that Part 4? I will save it for Part 4. On Part 3 I will just let it slide there Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.
Burton Mark: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8302] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have just a couple of points. Firstly clause 60 of the bill importantly clarifies the extended jurisdiction of the District Court and that is effectively a tidying-up provision that is quite important. 
I want to comment briefly on the contributions from Tim Barnett and also from Charles Chauvel. [ 
Interruption 
] It was an offering of high standard I have to say. MMP has thrown up some interesting challenges to Governments but it has also offered up—and here we see a good example of it—some of the benefit that can accrue from the interaction between various parts of this institution. I have to say I was very encouraged by the interaction between the Regulations Review Committee and the Law and Order Committee and by the manner in which that interchange scrutinised and examined what is an important question of jurisdiction in looking at the regulation-making powers that are contained in clause 62A. 
If we look at the commentary on the bill we see an exchange and a working through of the issues. I believe that this has in the end produced a very strong and conclusive result and one as has been mentioned that also enjoys the support of the Chief Justice. This is a smaller part of the bill but it reflects some of the benefits that can come from the changes that have happened within this institution and in terms of the interaction between—in this case—the select committee and the Regulations Review Committee.
Barnett Tim: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8302] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I will take a very brief call on one particular part of the Law and Order Committee report in relation to Part 3 of the Criminal Procedure Bill; that is the item referring to the Regulations Review Committee. 
I am thinking of my experience for 6 years as chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee. That was thank goodness prior to Mr Finlayson’s arrival in this Parliament—if he had been here he would have made my life quite unbearable. Anyway it was a very functional committee because the National MPs were particularly cooperative. We had occasion to I guess one could say clash horns or have debate with the Regulations Review Committee. 
I note that when considering Part 3 of this bill the Law and Order Committee sought advice from the Regulations Review Committee and received advice that at least one clause—62A which the committee was mindful to introduce into the legislation—“raised a fundamental issue of principle in respect of the delegation of lawmaking powers by Parliament.” I have to say that clause 62A does not seem to be as shocking as that at least on the face of it. It covers an amendment to section 123(1) of the principal Act and it adds a couple of paragraphs (bf) and (bg) amending schedule 1A—adding offences and so forth. 
I guess the issue behind the concern of the Regulations Review Committee is about the flexibility of legislation. The Law and Order Committee had a look at the situation and noted in the commentary that “the decision as to where a case is committed for trial will have no bearing on the rights of the person charged or the sentence that may be imposed.” Obviously the committee took outside advice notably from the Chief Justice who supported the amendment. Since this legislation is really around making the court system work more effectively the advice of the Chief Justice is important. 
The select committee also took account of the fact that any regulations made would have to go back to the Regulations Review Committee. This is really an example of the Regulations Review Committee giving advice that was considered and then rejected on particularly good grounds. The Regulations Review Committee has the power to call in any regulation for scrutiny and it will continue to try to guard the rights of the citizen that could potentially be under threat. 
That is really why the question was raised in the first place. I think it is worthy of note by members that this is quite a good example of the role that the Regulations Review Committee plays in both advising committees and guarding fundamental rights.
Burton Mark: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8300] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It appears that members have raised the questions and issues that they wanted to raise. I will just round off this part of the debate. 
Chester Borrows 
: We have a great many issues. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member should pay attention to his own colleague. I paid careful attention to Kate Wilkinson who raised a number of— 
Kate Wilkinson 
: I’m here. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: There she is. She raised a number of sensible and reasonable questions that I think I can provide a reasonable answer to. 
It is worth reminding ourselves that under the current law prosecution disclosure before trial is a mixture of case law and statutory rules under the Official Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 1993. It is a complex mix and I think this point goes to the matters that Kate Wilkinson raised in her questions. It also explains the purpose of simplifying and putting into one place provision that indeed does assist all those issues around disclosure requirements in a more transparent and straightforward way. The key principle in criminal proceedings is that all of those matters that should be and are required to be disclosed to the defence are disclosed in a good and timely manner. These provisions will assist in that process and I commend this part of the bill to members. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 2 and the following amendments in his name to clause 56 be agreed to. 
Subclause (1): to omit “ 2 4 5 and 6” and substitute “and 2”. 
Subclause (2): to omit “ 2 4 5 and 6 (or” and substitute “and 2 (as”.  
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8299] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I am not a lawyer but I am most certainly interested in the fair application of the law and that is why it was interesting to sit on the Law and Order Committee when this bill was considered. 
The Criminal Procedure Bill is significant in the fact that it is proposing new criminal disclosure legislation. It will establish a fourfold disclosure regime requiring initial then full disclosure. One of the other interesting aspects of this is that the proposed Act consolidates a complex body of common law and legislation that we were advised led to inconsistent disclosure practices. The committee emphasised that disclosure is a continuing obligation on the prosecution under the new Act applicable both before and during a trial until all appeals are exhausted. 
Consistency is a good thing in life and it most certainly is a good thing in the practice of the law. It is also the view that the changes recommended aim primarily to clarify or augment the obligations on the prosecution. Clarity in the application of the law is also critically important. The public perception is that justice needs to be fair and to be seen to be fair to all because fairness in the application and execution of the law is in everyone’s interests. 
Part of the aim of Part 2 is to make legislation that is more workable. We are all familiar with comments and representations made to us from the public about their confusion in regard to the application of the law as they come into contact with it whether they are on the side of the accused or the victim in the whole legal argument. Anything that makes legislation more workable and more easily understood by the general public can be perceived and seen only to be a good thing. 
Reference was also made to notice and plea in Youth Court proceedings. In New Zealand the Youth Court is a bit more under the spotlight these days. It receives more attention from the public then as a consequence from the media. I am pleased to say that not all the publicity—the public and media comment—about the Youth Court is negative. This bill will certainly work to some degree to assist proceedings in the Youth Court. In the case of young persons in Youth Court proceedings they are not required to plead but disclosure is triggered only when a not guilty plea is entered. Amendments in relation to the Youth Court are intended to accommodate Youth Court proceedings when no plea is entered. 
Part 2 is about improving the efficiency of preliminary hearings and adding clarity to part of the court proceedings. I look forward to hearing further debate on this bill as the Committee stage ensues.
Borrows Chester: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8297] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 2. I agree funnily enough with Mr Cosgrove who talked about the desirability of a more efficient court system and we will see that as we go on to debate further parts in respect of this bill. 
Part 2 codifies a disclosure regime that exists currently and that is a good thing. So we will be voting for this part. It allows for limited disclosure by accused people but in actual fact it really only underlines two principles of the disclosure regime at the moment. One of those principles is alibi which is already part of the law and that accused people must disclose alibis at certain periods. Also that there is no property in expert witnesses; they are supposed to be independent and generally are. 
What is excellent is that the provisions of Part 2 allow for judges to set time frames on disclosure. A lot of good judges who allow cases to rattle through the court system which brings justice to a speedy resolution lead by example through force of personality and that is exactly what they do now. Judges themselves are divided in respect of a point that Mr Cosgrove raised on depositions. Those who wish to set those time frames tend to have speedy resolutions and go through the court system. I must say that it is a shame that there is not a clause in here that amends the Evidence Act in relation to requiring the police to speak to material witnesses who are readily available and ascertain evidence from them because sometimes they choose not to interview the obviously available witness. 
I also point out to the Minister that the provisions of Part 2 actually achieve what he wants the provisions of Part 5 as they are written now to achieve and that is to bring about speedier jury trials. So I look forward to supporting Part 2.
Burton Mark: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8295] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am happy to begin to engage with the member Kate Wilkinson and she raises a number of important points. Firstly I have heard a number of references to the use of a diagram as though somehow by its very existence it suggests that the Criminal Procedure Bill is too complicated to understand in any other way. In fact it was provided simply to assist with clarity. I thought it was a useful and practical tool and was the sort of sensible inclusion that I think we should make use of more often. But the fact remains as the member noted in referring to the commentary that the bill actually proposes a new fourfold disclosure regime in order to consolidate what is already a very complex body of common law in legislation. That is the fact of the matter. 
Members listening to Kate Wilkinson would be forgiven for thinking that what we were doing was moving from a very simple straightforward current procedure to a very complex one. In fact the reverse is true. The situation as it stands is complex. It has evolved over time. This procedure will clearly set out rules in one place rather than in more than one place and not as the mixture of statute and case law that currently exists. It will mean that all parties can be more aware of what they are entitled to what their responsibilities are and what the required procedures and time frames are. I cannot see how moving from the complexity that has evolved over time—which is the case now—to a more systematic consolidated approach does anything but assist in the execution of the law. 
The member referred to the Institute of Environmental and Scientific Research and to our discussions with it. I can happily inform the member that there have been subsequent discussions with both the institute and the police. Ministry officials have engaged with them. I think it is fair to say that they report that for the main part the institute can meet within the time frames provided for in the vast majority of cases and that in the few cases that it may be unable to meet the requirements it can get an extension. That is provided for in the bill. 
Therefore I think in effect the concerns the member raises have all been responded to. So I am confident that with those responses the member will now be fully satisfied and will happily embrace Part 2.
Guy Nathan: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8294] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 What we heard from that member over there Jill Pettis—“rat-tat!”—was the drum roll when Chester Borrows rolled her out of the electorate of Whanganui by a handsome majority. “Rat-tat!” was the sound of people in that electorate applauding when Chester Borrows replaced that member. That member over there the previous member for Whanganui spent a good portion of her speech saying thank you. Well that is what the people of the Whanganui electorate said to Chester Borrows when he won that seat so handsomely. 
I wish to take a call on the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). The main points I wish to raise are that we have a million people overseas and some of our youngest and brightest are leaving our shores to work and further their education overseas. That is of real concern to the National Party. A lot of our youngest and brightest—the brain drain—are heading overseas. But National is supporting this bill for the reason that it is pretty much tidy-up legislation. In particular it will actually allow the New Zealand Customs Service and the Inland Revenue Department to do further data-matching which I think is very very important. 
This is just a short call from the National Party to say that although we have some concerns we support this bill because it is really a tidy-up of legislation that has been a little bit messy and not well-thought-through. 
Bill read a third time.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8268] 
9.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What changes are being made to annual leave on 1 April this year? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased that as of 1 April New Zealand workers will be entitled to a minimum of 4 weeks’ annual leave. This extra break will give New Zealanders more time to spend with their families and friends and to enjoy a well deserved rest. I am advised that 820000 workers will benefit from this Government policy—a policy that I note the National Party opposed. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen any other proposed changes to New Zealanders’ annual leave? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes actually I have. I have seen a report that states: “He’’—referring to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen—“should be reeling in talks of union-friendly changes to the Employment Relations Act and dumping the looming election bribe of an extra week’s paid holiday.” That statement was from John Key in 2004. But he now says that he will let workers keep their extra week of holiday. With yet another flip-flop from the current leader of the National Party it is hard to imagine how anyone could trust him.
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8266] 
7.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does the Prime Minister’s statement that she supported extending daylight saving at the end of the summer represent Government policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Not yet but in my experience a statement of prime ministerial preference is often a good indicator of likely policy. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What assurance can the Prime Minister give that when the Government returns from overseas the 42000 people who have signed this petition will have their wish for extended daylight summer hours honoured? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that the Prime Minister returns on Sunday afternoon. I do not expect the process of Government policy development or consultation to be complete within that space of time. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is the Prime Minister working towards having New Zealanders enjoy longer daylight saving in the coming summer; if so notwithstanding the fact that she is overseas at the moment when can a decision be expected? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Obviously there is a process to be gone through in terms of both internal consultations and external consultations. There are a range of issues to be considered but I would certainly hope that any decision could be made in time for the coming summer season. The main barrier I understand is the Deputy Prime Minister who is concerned about the impact of darkness at 6.30 in the morning in late March on his going out on the golf course. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the engine room of our economy—namely the primary production sector—will be properly consulted before any extension to daylight saving is considered by the Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed. I think it is fair to say that this time round compared with some previous rounds the farming sector—including the dairy sector which is probably the sector most affected—has shown much less concern than has been the case in the past.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8263] 
5.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women's Affairs 
: What is the Government doing to address sexual violence? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs) 
: 
 This week the Government agreed to establish a ministerial group to address the issue of sexual violence. This group will be supported by an expert task force comprising senior Government officials non-governmental organisations and the judiciary. The terms of reference for this group will include providing advice to the Government on how to reduce the incidence and impact of sexual violence. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister seen any responses to the announcement; if so what do they say? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have seen reports in which groups who work with the victims of sexual violence say they are pleased that the Government is setting up the task force to deal with this issue and a number of them will be joining this weekend’s hui on sexual violence organised between the interagency Sexual Violence Project Team and the non-governmental organisation National Network Ending Sexual Violence Together. Progress will be made this weekend on a range of issues including looking at the provision of services to victims prevention initiatives and programmes to reduce offending criminal justice system responses to sexual offending and how victims are supported through the criminal justice system.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8262] 
3.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: He aha ngaripoatakuawhiwhi e ia mongawhakatutukinga mahi e paana ki te hunga rangatahi Maori e whai mahi ana? 
[ 
What reports has she received on the performance of Maori youth in employment? 
] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
Kua kite au itetahi o ngaripoata e kiana e kaha e nga rangatahi kia whai mahi. He mea tino pai rawa atu tera. 
[ 
I have seen one of the reports stating that Maori youth in employment is strong. That is really wonderful. 
] 
I have been advised that the household labour force survey shows that the number of Maori youth aged between 15 and 19 years in employment increased between 1999 and 2006 by 25 percent. This is a greater increase than the overall change in this age group. Also these statistics show that the rate of unemployed Maori youth aged between 15 and 19 years decreased by nearly 20 percent over the same period. This shows a strong commitment by this Government to getting young Maori people into work further education training or employment. 
Moana Mackey 
: What reports has the Minister seen on progress to reduce the number of Maori young people receiving the unemployment benefit? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Unlike this Government the previous Government did not seem to care about young people. In 1999 when Labour came into Government the number of Maori aged between 18 and 19 years who were on the unemployment benefit stood at nearly 6000 and now there are only 875 Maori aged between 18 and 19 years on the unemployment benefit. There is a good story. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member has a relatively strong voice and she is talking quite loudly but I am having trouble hearing those figures. Can she be asked to repeat them please? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I was having trouble at the end too. The point is that if members make throwaway comments about others that have no relevance to the question then they can expect to get a response in this House. I ask all members to stick in future to asking and answering them without superfluous comment. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: This Government is making a difference in ensuring that young Maori are actively engaged. In fact the employment statistics show that when Labour came into office in 1999 the number of unemployed young Maori aged between 18 and 19 stood at 6000 and now it is 875. That is a good story that shows that more young Maori are in work and more young Maori are being encouraged to stay in education or get further training and get a job.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8256] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am happy to speak to the point of order Madam Speaker. Within my memory National in its past as a National Government has over the heads of a Labour Opposition passed electoral legislation that disfranchised large numbers of New Zealanders.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8256] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I am sure that many Labour members—probably 17—are surprised to learn that the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act is a conscience issue. But that is neither here nor there. The real point is whether we are now to assume that the Labour Government sees electoral reform in this country—and therefore the legislation that will follow from electoral reform—as just another suit in the hands it plays in order to stay in Government by appeasing its supporting parties. That would be utterly appalling. Such legislation should be considered by all parties. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that the member is now verging into the realms of matters for debate. I was not sure whether there was an issue there but maybe—
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8256] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That would certainly not be the Government’s intention. If an electoral reform bill is introduced it will proceed through the normal channels—that is it will be introduced and lie upon the Table for at least 3 sitting days before it is afforded a first reading.
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8256] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I ask the Leader of the House to clarify whether in fact it would be possible to do what Mr Brownlee has very kindly suggested if we got to legislation after 10 p.m. on a particular day. I think there might have been a suggestion from the Leader of the House that it was not possible but I have looked into it and I think it is a very good idea.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8256] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We adopt a variety of processes. This particular bill of course is a conscience matter for those caucuses not operating a party vote. That complicates procedural matters in this respect. But I would certainly be consulting with either the leader of New Zealand First or the acting leader depending on when Mr Peters is available.
Brown Peter: Business Statement 
Brown Peter: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8256] 
PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is Dr Cullen in a position to say whether if he does seek urgency on any matter he will go through official channels and party leadership or will he just approach individual MPs?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8256] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 On the latter matter the Government’s practice is to consult with parties sufficiently to ensure that it has a majority before introducing a bill. It prefers to have the votes to pass the first reading before it actually introduces a bill. Of course the National Party will have full input on any matters that might trammel its capacity to repeat its performance as outlined in  
The Hollow Men 
 at the subsequent stages of that bill. 
On the second matter again the Government would not move urgency on any matter unless it had the assurance it had a majority to support that motion.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8255] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for his indications. In accepting that I am somewhat of a primitive in these matters compared with him I wonder whether I might put the question to him in a different way: does the Government intend to move a motion in order that Sue Bradford’s bill might pass under urgency next week? Further does he intend to consult with other political parties particularly the National Party prior to introducing an electoral reform bill also due imminently?
Mark Ron: Business Statement 
Mark Ron: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8255] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could the Leader of the House expand for the enlightenment of parties down this end of the House on whether those issues he was discussing with the National Party about an electoral reform bill will include legislation to prevent the sorts of things we have read about in the book  
The Hollow Men  
from ever being allowed to recur. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8255] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It would not be possible at the moment for Ms Bradford’s bill and the Government bill to be dealt with simultaneously as one is a member’s bill coming up on a members’ day and the other will be a Government bill coming up on a Government day. So that would be one rather large difficulty. 
Secondly of course it is the House that affords urgency not the Government. I would of course welcome support for any urgency in such matters. Thirdly obviously the National Party will be involved in discussion of any electoral reform bill that may be prepared because of course—that is called Parliament.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8255] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I have two questions to ask the Leader of the House today. The first relates to some potential business of the House. A report released at 1.20 today suggested that the Government is about to introduce electoral reform legislation to the House. Firstly I ask Dr Cullen what the time line is for that and whether he intends to discuss that bill with all other parties. 
The second matter deals with what appears to be a growing amount of speculation around Parliament that the Government will afford urgency next week to Sue Bradford’s section 59 repeal bill. I suppose that the natural conclusion to draw is that it would be very tidy for the Government to introduce an electoral reform bill and the section 59 bill under one urgency motion in order perhaps to take away some of the bad headlines it could expect from the latter bill. So can the Leader of the House simply tell us whether there is an electoral reform bill due any time will there be consultation with all other parties and does the Government intend to take urgency to pass the bill known as Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8255] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Criminal Procedure Bill the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill and the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill and to the first reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. Wednesday of course is a members’ day.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Pakistan—National Assembly and Senate 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Pakistan—National Assembly and Senate 
[Volume:638;Page:8255] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the parliamentary delegation from the National Assembly and Senate of Pakistan led by Mr HamidNasirChattha is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would like to welcome the delegation.
Visitors — Pakistan—National Assembly and Senate 
Visitors — Pakistan—National Assembly and Senate 
[Volume:638;Page:8255] 
Thursday 22 March 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Pakistan—National Assembly and Senate 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the parliamentary delegation from the National Assembly and Senate of Pakistan led by Mr HamidNasirChattha is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would like to welcome the delegation.
te Heuheu Georgina: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8389] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise in the second reading of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill and to say categorically that National supports the bill. We think it is a good bill. However we think that the member taking 7 years to bring it forward was probably a long time. None the less it is here and we support it because we support the involvement of women in the armed forces and we support the advancement of women throughout all sectors of the community not least defence. 
The second thing I want to say before I speak briefly to the bill is just to make a comment in relation to my colleague Wayne Mapp when he referred to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women as being tinpot. I certainly do not consider that committee to be tinpot. In fact as the Minister of Women’s Affairs back in 1999 I was very involved in advancing New Zealand’s position in it. But in Wayne Mapp’s defence— 
Hon Member 
: It was indefensible. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: No because actually he is a very fair person at the end of the day. In his defence he was trying to make a point and he got a bit carried away. 
Debate interrupted.
Mapp Wayne: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8386] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I must say that I was impressed with the last speaker on behalf of the Government Lianne Dalziel. I think it is probably worth reminding listeners to the radio that this is the shortest Order Paper in the history of this Government. There are only 13 items on the Order Paper. In fact the Government has deliberately added notices of motion basically to bolster out its Order Paper. 
Everyone on this side of the House is eagerly awaiting in particular the 12th item on the Order Paper the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope. We are very concerned that that particular legislation has sat on the Order Paper for many many years. Now that there are only 12 items on the Order Paper I guess we will be debating it pretty soon—or I ask the Government how many more notices of motion will it stack on in the next couple of days to bolster this Order Paper? 
It simply cannot go unremarked that the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill’s being changed from a member’s bill to a Government bill is truly a sign of desperation. I will speak briefly about the substance of the bill. Yes the bill is right and is supported by all parties in the House but it is worth noting that the rules allowing women to serve in all capacities in the armed forces have actually been in place for the last 7 years. I can understand that this Government quakes at the thought of an adverse Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women report. I guess that the Government spends all its time making sure that it is compliant with every little UN committee tinpot or otherwise so as not to get an adverse rating. I wonder what the public of New Zealand would say if the Government spent all of its time worrying about the UN. 
I bring the House’s attention to these particular facts because I think they need to be put on the record. The provincial reconstruction team currently serving in Afghanistan has about 100 people of which 21 are women. I think they need to be acknowledged and thanked. They are doing a great job for New Zealand. We note that the law will in the words of the Government finally give legislative recognition of their role. But for the Government to suggest that the bill is urgent that the bill has to be transformed from a member’s bill to a Government bill and that it has to be done for the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women is simply a falsehood. 
We on this side of the House are used to falsehoods. We get falsehoods from the Government every single day and the public will judge it for that. This Government could do a lot better. When we have an Order Paper with 12 items on it I say it is time to have a fresh election.
Brown Peter: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8375] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Much has been said on this Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill and I share the view of my National colleague so I do not intend to repeat the detail but this bill has been a long time in coming. It is an important bill because although some immigration advisers are obviously very good and on top of their game some others tend to give the impression that they are somewhat lacking in the knowledge and detail of how they apply their competency—if they have any at all. 
I have to say to the Hon Mark Gosche that it is not only constituency MPs who sort out the mess that is quite often left by poorly informed poorly educated or lazy immigration consultants. Just recently I had the case—I say recently; it was late last year—of a very fine guy and a family. He showed me the accounts he had got from a particular immigration adviser and the advice came down to: “I do not know and I cannot help at all. Try someone else.” He went to someone else and was told that the first adviser had put him totally crook that he should now do something different and that the second adviser would do it for him. That got him nowhere and ultimately in his desperation he came to see me. It took about 10 minutes to fix it yet this guy had paid the best part of $20000 in getting that advice. 
An immigration adviser has an important role. It is an important role for immigrants but it is also an important role for this country as a whole. We do not want immigrants coming here who are being mucked around and who are being made illegal immigrants in some cases when they have come here in good faith to play a working part in and to make a valued contribution to the country. 
National MPs have touched on the issue of our having too much bureaucracy. I do not believe that this bill has produced too much bureaucracy. In fact it is better to have a little more bureaucracy than to have too many illegal immigrants or frustrated immigrants or to have people’s lives mucked up because of incompetent people. This bill imposes a standard and it imposes a disciplinary regime. 
It is true that we looked at the situation of lawyers and some of us were very very cautious in giving lawyers the exemption that this bill does in fact award them. But the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee made it quite clear that we want to see lawyers toeing the line acting properly and professionally and taking care of their disciplinary measures under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act. If they fail on that account then we believe that Parliament must relook at the lawyers’ exemption. 
This bill is essential. This country must handle its immigration problems and its people sensitively and fairly. Some of the immigration advisers we have handling these issues at the moment are a long way short of handling them competently and fairly. New Zealand First supports this bill.