edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Guy Nathan: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17570] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I wonder whether Dr Norman could just go through that again because I missed the start of what he was saying. There has been no dialogue on this side of the Committee about what he is proposing.
Stewart Barbara: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17570] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I am very pleased to rise and support this Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill and to talk to the purpose clause. We in New Zealand First believe that this is good legislation. We believe that it gives an opportunity for these young babies to be cared for in the best possible way and that it gives an ideal opportunity for mothers to learn the parenting skills they would not otherwise learn. We know that it is very difficult to get along to antenatal classes and many of the mothers we are talking about would not even have bothered to go. Going to classes is hard enough when mothers are working and doing everything right let alone when they trying to fit it into a life that is not ordered or very good. We believe this will be a controlled environment so that children will not be raised in the same environment their mothers were raised in and will have a far better opportunity. 
The good part of this legislation is that mother-child bonding can occur and we think this is an important part of every child’s upbringing. We in New Zealand First do wonder whether the children should be older than 24 months when they have to leave this environment because it is still a very big wrench for a child—a baby—to leave his or her mother when in such a secure environment. Potentially in the future the age could be increased again. Bonding is really important and we in New Zealand First believe that that is an essential part of this bill which we are very happy to support. 
Clause 4 agreed to.
Norman Russel William: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
Norman Russel William: Waste Minimisation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17570] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Under Standing Order 298(1)(c) I would like to postpone consideration of Part 1 until after Part 7. The purpose of this is simply to give us a little bit more time to consider the interesting amendments proposed by the honourable member Nicky Wagner so I am exercising my right under Standing Order 298(1)(c) to put Part 1 at the end.
Hide Rodney: General Debate 
Hide Rodney: General Debate 
[Volume:648;Page:17560] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I started to listen to what the honourable member on his feet was saying. My point of order is that although he is clearly interested in my jacket and what I paid for it what I am interested in to test his fiscal genius is what he paid for the plugs that he has— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Those are personal reflections. The member should know better.
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
[Volume:648;Page:17560] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just rise to say that I take no offence from that. Sadly Rodney my hair is all natural unlike the desert— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I will not get into a debate between you guys.
Roy Eric: General Debate 
Roy Eric: General Debate 
[Volume:648;Page:17554] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that outlines the procedure for donating to a secret trust that the Labour candidate had in Invercargill in 2005. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17545] 
9.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What reports has he received on employment relations? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have seen a report showing that under a Labour-led Government incomes for New Zealand’s lowest paid have gone up by 71 percent—more than four times what they went up in 9 years under the former National Government. I also note that the increase in the minimum wage was opposed by the National Party. The report further states that since 2002 130000 parents have taken advantage of paid parental leave—again opposed by the National Party—millions of working Kiwis now have 4 weeks’ leave a year which is something that John Key has promised to abolish and the real incomes of New Zealanders have increased by 25 percent since 2000. 
Darien Fenton 
: What other reports has the Minister received about employment relations? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen recent reports that show the National Party in a partly secret agenda would review the Holidays Act especially the issue of relevant daily pay—even though Kate Wilkinson has said that would result in a reduction of pay for sick people—and that it would introduce “fire at will”. The National Party will not spell out all of the details of its secret agenda but it is plain to see who is to be trusted. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister seen any further reports about employment relations? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I have seen an enormous debate and it goes to the length of the secret agenda. Yesterday Colin James reported that John Key said the agenda had 34 pages but yesterday John Key’s media people were running around the press gallery telling members of the press that it was only 14 pages. So what is the debate? Was there really a 34-page secret agenda which has now been edited down to 14 or was it just another case of John Key getting the details wrong again? The related question is why he was so scared to have the media at his Orewa speech. Was he outlining the secret agenda again or is he just generally a chicken? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is out of order. [ 
Interruption 
] It is very difficult to hear. Does the member take offence? [ 
Interruption 
] Would the Minister please withdraw his last reference. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you.
Tolley Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tolley Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17545] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the reply to a written question showing that the Minister admits that he does not know the number of prosecutions that schools are making for truancy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17544] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I would like to take the House back to question No. 4. I remind the House that the Hon Bill English tabled a thing with two ticks on it. I now have this thing and wish to table it myself noting in passing that it was produced in 2005. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17545] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Of course that does not make any difference. It is the distribution of it in 2008 under the current electoral finance law that makes it illegal.
Foss Craig: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
Foss Craig: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
[Volume:648;Page:17540] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a document that outlines the major shareholding of Cynotech Holdings Ltd. It is its annual report 2004 which lists the members of the Foss Family Trust as shareholders—a publicly listed company. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question time resumed.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
[Volume:648;Page:17540] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Clearly what Mr Jones was referring to was the nature of the allegations made about what Mr Peters was supposed to have said. He was presenting documentary evidence to support Mr Peters’ claims; he was not in fact questioning the statement made by Mr Foss. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that the problem arose because Mr Foss did not stand and say “Point of order.”; he just launched forth on what sounded like a personal statement. I think we all learn from this kind of experience. I have referred members to the Speaker’s ruling and I have ruled on the matter consistent with it.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
[Volume:648;Page:17539] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 If New Zealand First members are so clever at working out for themselves Mr Foss’s arrangements around these matters and my noting also that Mr Foss did make a declaration on his pecuniary interests register why do they know so little about themselves? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have ruled on the matter but I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 19/3. I think it is important that if members take offence that fact is raised at the time. That Speaker’s ruling states that it must be raised at the time. If a member is not present in the House that is too bad; the House cannot go back to the matter just because a member was not present. As was also pointed out however the member did have the opportunity to make a personal statement and made it. I remind members that the general debate is coming up after question time and members may wish to raise these matters then.
Jones Dail: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
Jones Dail: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
[Volume:648;Page:17540] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the first two pages of a Companies Office search for Cynotech Holdings Ltd. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
[Volume:648;Page:17540] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I need to call to your attention our observation that when Mr Foss first attempted to raise this matter you stopped him mid-sentence on at least two occasions inside a minute. But Mr Jones who completely ignored the convention that one does not go back over matters raised in a personal statement was allowed to drone on for quite some time without any interruption whatsoever. In fact it was only when an interjection was made during the point of order that he finally shut up.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
[Volume:648;Page:17539] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The allegations that I made went with the documents and Mr Dail Jones has clearly explained what those documents say. We are prepared to give Mr Foss a chance to clear up the ambiguity referred to but he does not want to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will take Mr Brownlee’s point of order then I will rule.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
[Volume:648;Page:17539] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think the member has got himself into a bit of difficulty now because if he made a personal statement yesterday and was seeking an apology he should have sought it from Mr Peters straight away. He should not come back into the House now—in the middle of question time—and raise another point of order. Apparently in the light of recent discussion he was in fact using a trust to cover his owning 2.5 million shares—not an insignificant amount. We have had very many accusations flying across this House over the last week or two about things being held in trusts.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
[Volume:648;Page:17539] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. First let me inform the House that it was quite unclear what Mr Peters was alleging yesterday during question time. Subsequent to question time after getting hold of a transcript from the television service it became clear exactly what Mr Peters had said. At that point a staff member from the National Party circulated material in the gallery to make it abundantly clear that Mr Peters had got it wrong. Mr Foss has just returned to the capital having been away from Wellington. This is his first opportunity to raise this matter. I do not think it is unreasonable—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Let Mr Brownlee finish in silence please. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not think it is unreasonable that he makes a request of you to require Mr Peters to withdraw and apologise for the allegations that he made which were totally untrue.
Jones Dail: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
Jones Dail: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
[Volume:648;Page:17539] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 In the first instance Mr Foss was given leave yesterday to make a personal explanation which he did. Mr Brownlee seems to be unaware of that fact. In the second instance Mr Foss is wrong in what he has been saying because I have in front of me a Companies Office search for Cynotech Holdings Ltd that indicates that Craig Foss is the holder of 2524750 shares. Further along in this Companies Office record there is reference to three people who held shares and that might suggest that those three people were trustees. That is the usual way in which one implies that there might be a trust. But as it stands on the Companies Office register the Rt Hon Winston Peters is absolutely correct. There is only one person who holds the shares and there is no indication that those shares are being held on the part of a trust. Of course the Companies Office register does not say that one is a trustee of a trust. So all we need from Mr Foss is an explanation to say that he is the sole trustee of this trust and that he has a beneficial interest in this trust and then the matter would be at an end. As it stands there is clearly an ambiguity. I would just ask Mr Foss to clarify that he is the trustee of this trust because we know that trusts are not disclosed on the Companies Office register. That would end the matter.
Foss Craig: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
Foss Craig: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
[Volume:648;Page:17539] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I took offence at the allegations made yesterday. I refuted them yesterday in a personal statement made when I tabled a document in the House. I am still offended by the allegations made yesterday Madam Speaker. I ask that you require the member to withdraw and apologise.
Foss Craig: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
Foss Craig: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
[Volume:648;Page:17538] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Yesterday I took offence at accusations made in this House by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that were designed to discredit my integrity. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member presumably is raising a point of order? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Yes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please get to the point. It sounds like you are seeking leave for a personal statement. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: No I am not—one and a half sentences and we will be there. I did disprove those allegations by tabling documents— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is a personal statement. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Madam Speaker I am going to request something of you right now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please request it and then explain what it is so that we have it in context. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: The allegations caused me great offence. I ask that you require Winston Peters to withdraw and apologise for those allegations. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member well knows that that should have been requested at the time.
Jones Dail: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
Jones Dail: Points of Order — Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Allegation 
[Volume:648;Page:17538] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have already ruled on it Mr Jones. You are a bit late.
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17536] 
5.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What recent reports has he received on investment in health infrastructure? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Today I announced the approval of an $80 million revamp for Taranaki Base Hospital. This revamp is the latest in a large hospital development and rebuilding programme—the largest in New Zealand’s history. Since Labour took office seven new hospitals have been built and eight have had major upgrades. Ten specialist facilities have been built three more redevelopment projects are almost complete and a further four major capital projects have been approved and are under way. What a great Labour-led Government! 
Lesley Soper 
: How does spending on hospital capital upgrades under the current Labour-led Government’s tenure compare with the spending under previous administrations? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is more than three times the previous National Government spend. Over $1.5 billion has been invested in 33 building projects that will benefit patients from Kaitaia to the deep south including a major rebuild of Auckland Hospital a new base hospital for Invercargill a new base hospital in the Wairarapa a new women’s hospital in Christchurch a new hospital in South Taranaki a new hospital in central Otago the new Horowhenua health centre—the list could go on and on. How about the National Party fronting up and revealing its secret phone book - sized agenda for health so that the public can compare the difference? 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: When will the Minister deliver on the Government’s broken promise to rebuild and replace ward 27 Wellington’s inadequate and outdated psychiatric unit and how many more suicides in the community will there be before this Minister stops bragging and takes action? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Government has invested significantly in mental health facilities around the country including the new facilities in the region of the member’s own district health board—the Waitemata District Health Board. The decisions about the Wellington-based hospital are a matter for the Capital and Coast District Health Board.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Niue—Premier 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Niue—Premier 
[Volume:648;Page:17529] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Toke Talagi Premier of Niue is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. I am sure that the House would also wish to welcome members of his delegation present in the gallery. 
The Hon Toke Talagi accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Visitors — Niue—Premier 
Visitors — Niue—Premier 
[Volume:648;Page:17529] 
Wednesday 30 July 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Niue—Premier 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Toke Talagi Premier of Niue is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. I am sure that the House would also wish to welcome members of his delegation present in the gallery. 
The Hon Toke Talagi accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
King Annette: Policing Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17884] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Part 3 is about support for effective policing. It sets out proposals to support front-line policing through access to clear powers and protections. Principally it covers areas of current policing practice and existing law that can be carried forward into the new Policing Act in some cases with updated language and minor change. 
A small number of police-related provisions and other statutes are also transferred into the new Policing Act by this bill notably a small number of front-line police powers which will have better visibility in the Policing Act for those who have to use them day by day. In particular clauses 32 to 33 modernise the way in which the police are able to obtain particulars of identification of persons they take into custody or whom they intend to summons for an offence. 
There is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name with a small technical change on this particular part. I do not think it requires a lot of explanation from me but obviously effective policing bringing forward those particular powers and protections into this Act bringing forward provisions from other statutes and making the Act clearer and easier to use for those who have to use it on an everyday basis is important. 
It is also important I think to ensure we modernise the language. One of the interesting things about the old Act as one sees if one reads it is that it was certainly written for 1958. Not many of us would actually remember what 1958 was like but the language of the old Act reflects those times. This part of the bill is about bringing the old Act forward making those minor changes and bringing the legislation up to contemporary times.
Borrows Chester: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17885] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 National will be supporting Part 3 of the Policing Bill as well. As the Minister has said it runs through a number of powers and abilities that the police have in respect of dealing with people in custody dealing with people on the street and obtaining and identifying particulars of persons whom they may wish to issue a summons to in order to expedite their dealings with them and bring them before the court. 
It also relates to searches of people in custody and the identifying particulars that they are able to take from those who get arrested to be taken before the court. It allows for the security of biometric information in relation to them as well. It also helps the police in dealing for instance with intoxicated people who unfortunately the police have to deal with from time to time with the power of arrest but without having to go on and prefer charges on them. The bill is moving to allow the police to deal with people in a humane way. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Finlayson Christopher: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17883] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a brief call on this matter because I want to say something about Mr Harawira’s amendment which proposes to insert a Treaty clause into the Policing Bill. I have spoken on Treaty clauses in this Committee and in the House on a number of occasions. I refer to a speech I gave on the first reading of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill on 26 July 2006. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Just remind us again. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: For Mr Hughes’ benefit because I know he always reads my speeches and indeed memorises them I say to Mr Hughes that this speech can be found in  
Hansard 
 Volume 632 at page 4454. 
In that speech which dealt with Mr Woolerton’s rather substandard bill on deletion of the principles of the Treaty I identified four types of legislation that contain Treaty provisions: firstly general legislation; secondly private Acts; thirdly settlement legislation; and finally two important Treaty statutes that deserve special mention. I argued that I failed to see how it was appropriate to remove Treaty provisions from certain types of legislation but include a Treaty provision when dealing with general legislation like the Crown Minerals Act the Crown Pastoral Land Act or the Crown Research Institutes Act. 
I adopt a similar approach to the insertion of a Treaty clause in this particular bill because it is of general applicability. The responsibilities of the police are to every New Zealander regardless of race creed colour or political party. They have those general obligations rather than specific obligations. 
So with the greatest of respect to Mr Harawira it seems to me that although it may be appropriate to have a Treaty clause in Treaty settlement legislation—because the breaches of the principles of the Treaty are the very reason why there needs to be a hearing in the Waitangi Tribunal and a Treaty settlement—I have difficulty with the inclusion of Treaty clauses in legislation that is to have general applicability. So National will not be supporting this proposed amendment. We understand why the member has put the amendment forward but we do not think it is consistent with the general principles of statutory interpretation for this type of legislation. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hone Harawira to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to add the following paragraph: 
(g)in interpreting and administering this Act to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi.
Vote: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17884] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Wagner Nicky: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17883] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I am continuing my theme “the policeman is your friend”. I would like to endorse the understanding that the police are only part of the answer in keeping people safe and our society lawful. They cannot do it alone. Policing is successful only if the police have public support and confidence. There is no doubt that we all have responsibilities in contributing to a safe and crime-free society. Clause 10 acknowledges that public agencies and other bodies have an important and valuable role in the performance of the functions of the police and that the police often have to cooperate with others—individuals and groups—to get results. 
That reminds me of a speech that was made by the founder of the Buddha’s Light International Association when he opened the new Buddhist temple in Christchurch. He spoke of the role Buddhists have in society. He believes that it is their job to teach and support their people and to make sure they understand what is right and wrong and to clearly instruct them on their responsibilities in terms of creating a safe and peaceful society. The chief of police in Canterbury Dave Cliff was present at that opening and the grand master quipped that the New Zealand Police would be required only if the Buddhist community failed its people. That is an example of the police working with the Buddhist community in respecting their contribution and in understanding that if the relationship is working the police should not be required. 
When we look at the wide variety of functions of the police in clause 9 we see that they vary from crime prevention and law enforcement to their supporting and reassuring the community keeping of the peace and national security and emergency management. We can see just how many organisations the police have to interact with successfully if they are to do their work well. Those organisations range from local government and mayors community groups schools churches families—in fact all New Zealand citizens. 
Clause 9(f) concerns policing activities outside New Zealand and this is an important part of policing duties. Last year I visited Timor-Leste as part of the United Nations group monitoring the first parliamentary elections. While I was there I visited the New Zealand police who were stationed in Dili. I was really impressed by the work they were doing. They were working with the Timorese people in very difficult situations but they were doing it with skill and sensitivity. They were highly respected by the locals. Although there were police from many nations in Timor-Leste New Zealanders were mentioned as being highly respected and highly regarded. I think part of that as Shane Jones mentioned was that they were a bicultural group and that the Maori language has similar roots to Tetum the language of Timor-Leste so the New Zealand police could relate on another level with the local people. I think that reflects that the Timorese would truly believe that the New Zealand police are their friends.
King Annette: Policing Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17878] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I will take just a short call because I can see there is a lot of interest in participating in this debate. I want to address the issue that the member John Hayes raised with regard to the functions of the New Zealand Police. I am informed—and I am sure members who were on the Law and Order Committee will tell the member—that the order was reordered deliberately by the select committee itself and that was done by a unanimous decision. When the members looked through the order of the functions they believed that this was the order they ought to be in and that maybe the chair of the select committee or other members might like to take a call on that. The functions were listed in no particular order but when the select committee heard submissions this is the way they reordered them. That decision came out of the select committee. 
The member raised a few points in regard to Carterton. I just say to the member that it relates to this bill in that one of the important parts of Part 2 is working with the community to get the sort of policing we need. In Carterton we managed with the support of the mayor and the New Zealand Police to ensure a police presence in the Carterton area and that the community has the ability to be involved in it. I think that is what was so important about it. I take the member’s point about the time it took but it was resolved. I know that the mayor who came to see me about this issue was pleased with the outcome. He worked with the police and we have a satisfactory outcome from it. A good partnership has been formed between local government the New Zealand Police and volunteers and I think that that is a very good outcome from that situation.
Mark Ron: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17871] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I guess it is appropriate that New Zealand First makes a comment on Part 1. I have to say having listened to that speech and maybe a couple before it that people out there in their motor vehicles heading home this evening are probably thinking that Part 1 is this huge volume of work that covers all manner of issues that police confront on a day-to-day basis from noisy boy-racers to insensitive police officers. Let us just look at what Part 1 does. The Policing Bill is arranged into five parts. Part 1 contains a small number of preliminary provisions including an overall purpose statement and a number of defined terms that are used frequently throughout the legislation and it confirms that the proposed new Policing Act will bind the Crown. We support that. 
Part 1 agreed to.
King Annette: Policing Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17867] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman and that time sped by last night when we had the opportunity to commence the debate in the Committee stage of this very important bill. We are now going through the part by part analysis of it. 
As I said last night this bill is the foundation to equip the New Zealand Police to provide the best policing services for New Zealanders. In broad terms the bill sets out to achieve two fundamental tasks. The first is to confirm and strengthen police governance accountability and organisational arrangements in a way that is suitable for the contemporary age. We are changing legislation that is 50 years old. We are putting in place an Act that will be contemporary. Secondly the bill sets out to improve police effectiveness especially by updating human resource management provisions and by establishing a clear framework for the exercising of police powers by particular police employees. 
This bill has been extensively tested and refined and it has benefited from having a very robust consultation process. Part of the success of that process has been the willingness of parties in this House to take a multiparty approach to this important legislation which we hope will endure for as long as the first Police Act of 1958. 
At this point we are debating Part 1 which gives us the preliminary provisions. This part provides an updated list of terms in clause 4 “Interpretation”. For example the term “Police employee” replaces the term “sworn and non-sworn members of the Police” in order to reflect the single employment framework advanced in this bill. 
Supplementary Order Paper 222 in my name amends Part 1. It is a minor amendment to postpone the commencement date until 1 October 2008. It also proposes to insert a new subclause (1A) in clause 120 of this bill. This will amend a provision of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 and will come into force on the commencement of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Act 2008. As one would say Supplementary Order Paper 222 is a minor technical amendment to Part 1.
Simich Clem: Policing Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Policing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17867] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: When the Committee was last considering the bill the Hon Annette King had 1 minute and 33 seconds left.
Brown Peter: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17865] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First also supports the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill which I think will go through unanimously. This bill simply corrects a flaw. It gives the Parliamentary Service the authority to pay an MP elected on election night until he or she is confirmed or otherwise dispensed with. I think most New Zealanders would see this as common sense. Any reasonable freethinking New Zealander would think it is reasonable to pay—not every entitlement but the relevant entitlements—a person who has seemingly been elected on election night until that election is confirmed as has been outlined by the member who has just resumed his seat Nathan Guy. 
We think the bill is very simple straightforward honest and fair. Its provisions have been the past practice. New Zealand First supports the bill.
Hughes Darren: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17865] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This is a small bill but it is an important one for the operation of this Parliament in the period immediately after the election. It has received the consideration of the Standing Orders Committee chaired by the Speaker and has had further consideration in the Committee of the whole House. I would like to thank the select committee members for the work they did on this short piece of legislation and to thank the other political parties for all the work effort and support that they have given to this bill in order for its third reading to progress today. Thank you.
Guy Nathan: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17865] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 National is happy to support the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill. It is important that we get the process right— 
Peter Brown 
: Two in a row! 
NATHAN GUY 
: Certainly and I look forward to Mr Dunne’s contribution on this very important legislation— 
Hon Members 
: That is Mr Brown! 
NATHAN GUY 
: Oh it is too! I beg Mr Brown’s pardon—both members are of a similar vintage. 
This is very important legislation because it tidies up the period—on average about 2 weeks—between polling day and declaration day. It ensures that members can travel to Parliament and stay the night if they need to if a caucus meeting is called over that particular period of time. It also allows existing members who no doubt have a lease on a parliamentary office to carry on those payments over that period of time. Some telecommunications might need to progress over that time as well. So we are supporting this bill. 
The Standing Orders Committee had no public submissions on the bill. It will tidy up the legalities that need to be tidied up. I thank the other committee members Mr Brown being one for their support during the select committee process. National supports this bill in its third reading.
Brown Peter: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17861] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not intend to take a long call because I think we are all saying the same things here. From what I can work out we all support the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. It went through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee with a great deal of support. It is only a small bill and a few clauses were amended to make it flexible fairer and clearer. New Zealand First takes the attitude to legislation—certainly to workplace legislation—that it should be to encourage people to work to live not to live to work and we think this legislation puts in place some reasonable entitlements for working people. 
I have to say that we had our doubts—and I think the National Party also expressed its doubts—about whether we needed such legislation when the bill first came into the House but we supported it to go to the select committee. Those doubts were quite quickly dispelled when we listened to some of the submitters. So we think we are doing the right thing in putting this bill into place. The bill might well need some amendment or adjustment of clauses when we get to the Committee stage to ensure that it does exactly what we all think it means to do but that is yet to be seen. At this stage New Zealand First is supporting this bill.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17855] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This Government seeks to boost protections for vulnerable workers and breastfeeding mothers by legislating for minimum meal breaks and rest breaks and the protection of employees who wish to breastfeed their babies at work. These amendments will create minimum standards and a modern workforce in respect of the protection and promotion of infant feeding and the provision of rest and meal breaks. These amendments also support Government policy concerning the choices of employees particularly when it comes to their work-life balance and parenting responsibilities. I want to acknowledge the hard work of Sue Moroney MP whose member’s bill formed the basis for the rest and meal break provisions contained in this bill and the Hon Steve Chadwick whose member’s bill on breastfeeding was the basis for the infant-feeding provisions of the bill. 
This bill returns to the House with a small number of minor amendments in response to the submissions received by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to clarify the intent of the bill. These amendments include clarification that breastfeeding breaks and facilities are to be provided only where it is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances and clarification that employers and employees can agree to the times that rest and meal breaks can be observed. Where such agreement cannot be reached these breaks must be provided in the middle of the work period where reasonable and practicable. The bill was also amended to entitle employees to one 10-minute rest break if their work period is 2 hours or more but not more than 4 hours. As introduced the bill would have entitled employees to a 10-minute break if their work period was 4 hours or fewer. 
This bill reflects the Government’s commitment to the protection of our country’s most vulnerable workers. It upholds Government policy to support the work and caring choices of hard-working New Zealand parents while recognising that breastfeeding provides the best start in life for babies. I want to thank the select committee for its work on the bill and for its report. I also extend my thanks to all those who took the time to make submissions. I commend the bill to the House.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:649;Page:17854] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Noting the unavailability of Mr Anderton who gives us humorous answers on a Thursday afternoon I seek leave for this question to be held over until next question time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:649;Page:17851] 
9.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Has she received any recent advice on New Zealand’s social trends? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes I have. I have been advised that the gap between rich and poor households has closed for the first time in 20 years. The proportion of people with low incomes is also considerably lower. The earnings per person was higher in real terms in 2007 than it was in the mid-1990s and overall poverty fell from 19 percent in 2001 to 13 percent in 2007 using the  
Social Report 
 measure representing a total of 190000 fewer New Zealanders in poverty in the last year. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Has she has received any advice that explains why the gap between lower household incomes and higher household incomes has closed? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. The fact that incomes for lower and middle income households has grown more rapidly than others is attributed mainly to the Working for Families package. This is of course why National’s Bill English says their message to the public before the election is to keep Working for Families intact because they do not want to be seen as taking money off people. However after the election if National is the Government it will give it “a bit of a sort out”. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does she recall giving a recent speech in which she said: “We must cater for the diversity we know exists. By this I mean the range of relationships from single couples triples blended de facto and so on. That’s where we are going with social policy.” and in the recent advice she received on social trends in New Zealand was there a description of the relationship she describes as a triple; if so what was that advice? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table an excerpt from the Minister’s speech in which she talks about this new relationship called a triple. 
Document not tabled.
Ryall Tony: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 6 August 
Ryall Tony: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 6 August 
[Volume:649;Page:17836] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a written answer from the Minister of Health in February this year confirming there had been a change in the way— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 6 August 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 6 August 
[Volume:649;Page:17836] 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 7 to Minister 6 August 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I want to correct an error in data I gave to the House yesterday in an answer to a question. I stated that over 2300 extra medical personnel have been employed by the district health boards since 2001. I am now advised that a change to the definition of full-time equivalents and the inadvertent inclusion of some 2008-09 planning data affected those figures. I am advised that a fully equivalent set of data does not exist. My answer was correct as I understood it at the time and I am correcting the inaccuracy in the assumptions at the earliest possibly opportunity under the Standing Orders. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Might it not also be appropriate for the Minister to withdraw and apologise for the comments he made about the Opposition spokesperson on health at the time the question was asked. He relied on the statistics he had which are now proved to be incorrect to give some validity to his insult. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I certainly apologise to the House for the inaccurate data. That was unknown to me but none the less the data were presented. I further apologise if any inference was taken by the member. I am however advised that the general conclusion I gave to the House yesterday that the growth in medical personnel was greater than the growth in support personnel remains true notwithstanding the definitional adjustment in the 2006-07 year. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a written answer from the Minister of Health in February this year confirming there had been a change in the way— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Cunliffe David: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 6 August 
Cunliffe David: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 6 August 
[Volume:649;Page:17836] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I want to correct an error in data I gave to the House yesterday in an answer to a question. I stated that over 2300 extra medical personnel have been employed by the district health boards since 2001. I am now advised that a change to the definition of full-time equivalents and the inadvertent inclusion of some 2008-09 planning data affected those figures. I am advised that a fully equivalent set of data does not exist. My answer was correct as I understood it at the time and I am correcting the inaccuracy in the assumptions at the earliest possibly opportunity under the Standing Orders.
Cunliffe David: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 6 August 
Cunliffe David: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 6 August 
[Volume:649;Page:17836] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I certainly apologise to the House for the inaccurate data. That was unknown to me but none the less the data were presented. I further apologise if any inference was taken by the member. I am however advised that the general conclusion I gave to the House yesterday that the growth in medical personnel was greater than the growth in support personnel remains true notwithstanding the definitional adjustment in the 2006-07 year.