edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Maharey Steve: Farmers' Mutual Group Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Maharey Steve: Farmers' Mutual Group Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11148] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I move  
That the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill be now read a second time 
. This is a private bill promoted by the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association. The organisation has its head in the fine city of Palmerston North and I see a member opposite who in fact worked in the same building. The organisation is in the heart of the city and it is a very proud member of the Manawatu so I was very pleased to be approached by it to bring the bill before the House. I am pleased to see the progress that it has made and I want to thank David Carter and members of the Primary Production Committee for that speedy progress through the select committee stage. 
The Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association is one of New Zealand’s longest-established and very proud rural service companies. The Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association and its predecessors have provided general insurance to farmers and members of the rural community for over 100 years. The Primary Production Committee has given very careful consideration to the bill and recommends that it be passed with only very minor amendments drafted to enhance the clarity and style. I thank the select committee for those changes and I also want to ensure that the officials of the Ministry of Economic Development and parliamentary counsel are thanked too because I know they have been doing the work of making that happen and are satisfied with what they have done. 
In essence the bill entrenches the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association’s mutual status so it remains owned by its members preserves its principal business of providing risk insurance to rural folks gives the organisation the same capacity and powers as a company which will allow it to broaden its range of products and services to better meet member needs and improves the organisation’s accountability to its members through the imposition of a modern governance regime based on the Companies Act 1993. It gives the organisation a new name—it will be called the Farmers’ Mutual Group which at least will mean that it will not have to change from being known as “FMG”. 
The company undertook an extensive consultation programme on the bill with its 35000 members prior to the bill’s introduction into the House. I know that members who have not been close to this and are watching the speed of it will like to know that there were no objections and no negative comments on the bill at all. Members were overwhelmingly in favour of preserving their mutual status and supported the proposed direction in the bill. 
In conclusion the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association has advised me that it supports the select committee’s conclusions. It endorses the bill as reported back. I commend the select committee’s report to the House and I thank the Primary Production Committee and the House for their cooperation and support on this bill.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—National Party 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—National Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11114] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be an additional question and indicate that if leave is granted it will be given to the National Party. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—National Party 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—National Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11113] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not mean to try your patience; I realise this is also not a point of order. But I would take the opportunity to signal to Mr Peters that should he like to ask himself a question and give us an answer then we would be more than happy to allow such a process to take place. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This will be the last contribution to the non - point of order and then we will get back to the business of the House.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—National Party 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—National Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11113] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order at the earliest opportunity because I want to know whether there has been a printing error in the questions for today. Given all the hoopla and ballyhoo regarding diplomatic appointments that the National Party has engaged in all morning I was certain there was bound to be a question on the Order Paper today. Or is it just another case of all grim when it comes to the media and no substance when it comes to Parliament? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the member please be seated. As he is aware that is not a point of order.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Accountability Arrangements 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Accountability Arrangements 
[Volume:641;Page:11113] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: On Tuesday the Hon Dr Nick Smith raised a point of order about the accountability arrangements for questions for oral answer. Standing Orders 369 and 370 are quite clear: questions can be put to Ministers relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected or proceedings in the House or any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible. Questions may be put to other members relating to a bill motion or public matter connected with the business of the House of which the member has charge. Dr Smith’s question yesterday related to public affairs for which only a Minister is answerable during questions for oral answer in the House. Question time is primarily an opportunity for members to hold Ministers to account. 
The member in his point of order sought a widening of this accountability to reflect the Government’s support arrangements with parties not in the Government coalition on the basis that questions may now be put to Associate Ministers. The member is correct: Associate Ministers may be asked questions but only where the Speaker has been informed by the Government that there is a delegated area of responsibility. The arrangements that the Government has with other parties concerning the development and announcement of policy do not affect the application of Standing Order 369. It is for the Government to decide which Minister is responsible. We already have Ministers from outside the Government coalition but in the particular instance the member raised no such arrangement is in place. The Minister of Energy remains the responsible Minister.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Germany Federal Republic—German - Australia / New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Germany Federal Republic—German - Australia / New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group 
[Volume:641;Page:11113] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have pleasure in informing the House that members of the German - Australia / New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group from the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany led by Ms Nina Hauer are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish to welcome the delegation.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11123] 
PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek a point of clarification actually. When you send a member from the House it is normal that he or she is invited back or allowed to come back after question time and I have since been informed of that. But I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that earlier on this afternoon leave was sought and agreed to that any question that I think the National Party in particular wants to put to the Rt Hon Winston Peters about events in the media this morning can be put. Can he come back during question No. 12? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. If the extra question that has been given does relate to Mr Peters’ ministerial responsibilities of course he can come back. It does not necessarily have to relate to him; it could be on anything as I understand it. 
PETER BROWN 
: The point I am making is that if the question does come he cannot possibly answer it if he is outside the House. He needs to be here a little bit before. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree and we will all wait until he comes.
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Accountability Arrangements 
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Accountability Arrangements 
[Volume:641;Page:11113] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Oral Answer—Accountability Arrangements 
Madam SPEAKER 
: On Tuesday the Hon Dr Nick Smith raised a point of order about the accountability arrangements for questions for oral answer. Standing Orders 369 and 370 are quite clear: questions can be put to Ministers relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected or proceedings in the House or any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible. Questions may be put to other members relating to a bill motion or public matter connected with the business of the House of which the member has charge. Dr Smith’s question yesterday related to public affairs for which only a Minister is answerable during questions for oral answer in the House. Question time is primarily an opportunity for members to hold Ministers to account. 
The member in his point of order sought a widening of this accountability to reflect the Government’s support arrangements with parties not in the Government coalition on the basis that questions may now be put to Associate Ministers. The member is correct: Associate Ministers may be asked questions but only where the Speaker has been informed by the Government that there is a delegated area of responsibility. The arrangements that the Government has with other parties concerning the development and announcement of policy do not affect the application of Standing Order 369. It is for the Government to decide which Minister is responsible. We already have Ministers from outside the Government coalition but in the particular instance the member raised no such arrangement is in place. The Minister of Energy remains the responsible Minister.
Visitors — Germany Federal Republic—German - Australia / New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group 
Visitors — Germany Federal Republic—German - Australia / New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group 
[Volume:641;Page:11113] 
Wednesday 15 August 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Germany Federal Republic—German - Australia / New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have pleasure in informing the House that members of the German - Australia / New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group from the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany led by Ms Nina Hauer are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish to welcome the delegation.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—National Party 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—National Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11114] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave for the National Party at this belated time to ask me a question on that matter that has caused them such great concern all morning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows he cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else.
Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—National Party 
Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—National Party 
[Volume:641;Page:11113] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Oral Answer—National Party 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order at the earliest opportunity because I want to know whether there has been a printing error in the questions for today. Given all the hoopla and ballyhoo regarding diplomatic appointments that the National Party has engaged in all morning I was certain there was bound to be a question on the Order Paper today. Or is it just another case of all grim when it comes to the media and no substance when it comes to Parliament? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the member please be seated. As he is aware that is not a point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not mean to try your patience; I realise this is also not a point of order. But I would take the opportunity to signal to Mr Peters that should he like to ask himself a question and give us an answer then we would be more than happy to allow such a process to take place. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This will be the last contribution to the non - point of order and then we will get back to the business of the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave for the National Party at this belated time to ask me a question on that matter that has caused them such great concern all morning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows he cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be an additional question and indicate that if leave is granted it will be given to the National Party. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Tisch Lindsay: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4529] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) is a very important bill and National has pleasure in supporting it. We should never compromise on our safety or security. Our borders must be secure in terms of biosecurity—as we have heard from previous speakers. We should never compromise on the importance of biosecurity nor on the safety of our travellers or ourselves as we travel and of our visitors who come to New Zealand. It was interesting when I spent some time at Auckland International Airport in 2000—and I know that the senior whip did also—then in 2003 to see the changes that had occurred in the security arrangements of that company and what was required. So with that in mind National has great pleasure in supporting this bill.
Ririnui Mita: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Ririnui Mita: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4516] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I move  
That the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee 
 for consideration that the committee report finally to the House on or before 27 October 2006 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c) 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4500] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The National Party is pleased to support this bill being sent to the Maori Affairs Committee with the intention that it should be dealt with in a very timely manner and that the settlement might be concluded some time later this year. Our view is that the speedy settlement of Treaty grievance is in the best interests of the whole country. We offer our thanks and congratulations to those from Ngati Mutunga who have for so long worked towards the day of settlement—who have worked towards ensuring that a settlement bill can be before the House for its consideration. I echo the sentiments of the Minister who expressed gratitude for the generous acceptance of this settlement in recognition of a full and final position being taken with regard to grievances. 
There is little doubt that throughout the country where settlement is conferred and accepted the ongoing economic development that comes from those settlements is of great benefit to the whole of the New Zealand economy. Perhaps what is more important I would observe is that where settlement occurs and the various iwi who are settled get hold of the assets—small though they may be in comparison with what they had—and are able to hold them to be their own and to do something with them then the general pride that exists and grows inside the iwi also has an extremely positive effect on the whole of the New Zealand population. So the value of settlements is very much about the value we put on the future we share together in this country. 
I do not think it is necessary for me to say too many more words other than to conclude my remarks by saying that we look forward to going through the select committee process. It is during that process that we learn a great deal about the history of this country in the various areas where there was a significant basis for grievance. The acknowledgment of that history the acceptance of the need to put that grievance to one side by way of redress by way of apology and by way of acknowledgment is very much part of the process we are committed to. 
I conclude by simply offering my congratulations again to those who have brought us to this day and express our desire that the next stage of the process moves as quickly as possible so that some time before Christmas we will in this House read for a third time the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4493] 
10.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector 
: What steps is the Government taking to improve capability and skills for communities to use information and communications technology? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 I recently announced 55 successful applicants to the Digital Strategy Community Partnership Fund which is part of the Labour-led Government’s National Digital Strategy. The expanded use of digital technologies is vital to New Zealand’s economic transformation and the community partnership fund will strengthen and better connect our communities. 
Sue Moroney 
: What response has she received from successful applicants to the fund? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: I have met with the New Zealand Spinal Trust in Christchurch which advises that it will use its grant to turn a handbook for spinal injury patients entitled  
Back on Track 
 into an interactive online educational resource about spinal injury. This is an exciting new initiative in which communities and the Government are working together to realise community aspirations through the innovative use of information and communications technology.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4486] 
4.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: He aha i noho ai ko te tautoko i te korerotanga o te reo Maori he kaupapa nui hei whai ma te Kawanatanga? 
[ 
Why has supporting spoken Maori become a major focus for the Government? 
] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
E tohu ana Te Rautaki Reo Maori a te Kawanatanga he reo e korerotia ana he reo ka ora. Na reira matau e whakahangai i a mahi ki te tautoko i tenei whainga. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
The Government’s Maori language strategy emphasises that a spoken language is a living language. We have focused our efforts to support this. 
] 
Shane Jones 
: He aha ke nga mahi e kokiritia ana hei tautoko i te wiki o te Reo Maori? What initiatives are under way to support Maori Language Week? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Kia ora. He whanui tonu nga momo mahi e kokiritia a matou o te Kawanatanga. E tu kaha a muri a te Kohanga Reo e tu kaha a muri a nga take Maori e kare e mohio take noa. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order please! 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is about the absolute rudeness from the National back bench. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it was noticed and unnecessary. Of course members can interject but I ask them to use some decorum. I ask the Minister to repeat his answer then we will have the translation. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: He whanui tonu nga momo mahi e kokiritia ana ki te tautoko i te Wiki o te Reo Maori ara hei tauira: ki te tu kaha ake ano te Kawanatanga a muri a Te Kohanga Reo kei te tu kaha ake ano te Kawanatanga a muri a nga take Maori e kare e mohio ake ano wetahi e mau koretake mo te reo. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
A 
 wide range of initiatives is under way to support Maori Language Week—for example those te kohanga reo initiatives fully supported by the Government those relating to Maoridom as well as those who are wanting in the language. 
]
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:632;Page:4482] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In line with what I indicated about the state luncheon next Wednesday I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Wednesday 2 August. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Brash Don: Business Statement 
Brash Don: Business Statement 
[Volume:632;Page:4482] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 In response to the Leader of the House I say that this is clearly a very serious matter and I would think it quite inappropriate to vote on it without appropriate debate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Dunne Peter: Business Statement 
Dunne Peter: Business Statement 
[Volume:632;Page:4481] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a minor technical point but there is something wrong with the volume of the sound down this end of the Chamber. We can hardly hear what is going on. This is an important issue so perhaps that could be attended to. For instance Dr Brash does not have a very soft voice but I could hardly hear the motion he read out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would ask those who attend to those matters to check and if we all talk directly into our microphones it might also help.
Brash Don: Business Statement 
Brash Don: Business Statement 
[Volume:632;Page:4481] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As the Leader of the House has just indicated I have this morning lodged with the Clerk’s Office a notice of motion which under normal circumstances would appear on the Order Paper on Tuesday. However I seek leave to move that motion forthwith. The motion reads: “That this House has no confidence in the Speaker given her ruling in the matter of privilege made out against Taito Phillip Field for the reasons that having been given the responsibility of exercising the very wide discretion under Standing Order 399 of determining matters that should be referred to the Privileges Committee of this Parliament she has chosen to exercise that discretion in such a narrow legalistic and technical manner as to make it impossible for the Privileges Committee to ascertain the truth regarding the allegations against Taito Phillip Field or to uphold and protect the standards and reputation of this Parliament.”
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:632;Page:4481] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am perfectly prepared to offer the member two options. The first is to find some time for debate next week perhaps in conjunction with the general debate which is what was done in 1985. Alternatively the motion could be moved forthwith without debate.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:632;Page:4481] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the third reading of the Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill including the second reading of the Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill which is a 3-hour debate. I notice also that on the Table of the House there is a motion of no confidence in the Speaker moved by Dr Donald Brash. I will discuss with Mr Brownlee and other parties later whether and when time should be set aside to discuss that motion. For the information of the House I say that the last time such a motion was accepted for debate was I think in 1985 when it was taken in conjunction with the general debate. Of course being a member’s motion it does not necessarily automatically come up for debate. Also next week we are looking to deal with the remaining stages of the Coroners Bill the Meat Board Amendment Bill the Standards and Conformance Bill and the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. The maiden statement of Charles Chauvel will take place at 5 30 p.m. on Tuesday 1 August. A State lunch will be held on Wednesday 2 August for the retiring Governor-General.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:632;Page:4482] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In line with what I indicated about the state luncheon next Wednesday I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Wednesday 2 August. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:632;Page:4481] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister “shadow” Leader of the House could give us an indication at this point whether his comments relating to a notice of motion that may appear on the Order Paper next week indicate a willingness to debate that topic.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:632;Page:4481] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Is the member seeking leave to move that motion forthwith without debate or with it? If it is without debate I would have no objection; if it is with debate the Government does have other business including the first reading of a Treaty settlement bill that it wishes to deal with this afternoon. I would be happy to take the motion without debate.
Dyson Ruth: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — First Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17298] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: I move  
That the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee 
 for consideration and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 22 August 2008. 
Motion agreed to.
Barnett Tim: Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill — First Reading 
Barnett Tim: Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17284] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I rise for a moment to put on record the extraordinary story around the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and in particular to note that it was really a combination of work by Don MacKay an extraordinary New Zealand diplomat; Ruth Dyson leading the political thrust and some key figures in the disability non-governmental organisation sector including Garry Williams the chief executive of the Disabled Persons Assembly; Mike Gourley the president of the assembly at the time; and notably Robert Martin who was previously a resident of Kimberley Hospital—which in itself in an extraordinary statement about the way in which people with disabilities were once treated in our society—and was part of the New Zealand official delegation. The delegation worked tirelessly and received international commendation for its work on this convention. 
I also recognise the comments of both Minister Dyson and the Opposition spokesperson that New Zealand likes to do these things properly. That is why quite rightly the bill will go through the select committee process. It will be great to see it come back to this House and go through all stages before the election.
Hayes John: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — Second Reading 
Hayes John: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17280] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the submission on the free-trade agreement between New Zealand and China prepared by Fonterra. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17280] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Hobbs Marian: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
Hobbs Marian: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
[Volume:648;Page:17257] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call the next speaker I am aware that United Future has given its slot to New Zealand First so it has 10 minutes.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
[Volume:648;Page:17251] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Dr Nick Smith seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release of the report  
Ministerial Inquiry into Matters Relating to the Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility that requires the immediate attention of the House. I therefore accept the application and call on the member to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17248] 
10.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: How confident is he that compact fluorescent lamp light bulbs are safe for New Zealanders to use in their homes? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Very. Fluorescent lights are used in all countries and can be safely used in New Zealand homes. The small amount of mercury is about one-twentieth of the amount in old fluorescent lights used in schools for decades and is also substantially less than that in current tube fittings. Indeed when I walked around the Beehive today I noted that just about all of the light fittings were fluorescent ones. Is the member suggesting we should ban them? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister agree with the Government’s spokesperson for energy efficiency Jeanette Fitzsimons who said yesterday that an  
Investigate 
 magazine article about compact fluorescent light bulbs “raises some concerns” and that “New Zealanders need to know that using CFL light bulbs will not pose a health risk to themselves and their families.”; if he does will he be commissioning the review that his colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons has called for? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well her statement was correct in that Mr Wishart’s article does raise those views. It is based on one study; I can advise the member that the Ministry of Health is reviewing that study and other related research and will no doubt present a more balanced view than Mr Wishart did. 
Moana Mackey 
: Are people being forced to use compact fluorescent lamps? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Again I repeat “No”. This seems to be a common misconception on Mr Brownlee’s part. A growing range of energy-saving lamps are now available— 
Jacqui Dean 
: They hate them! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
:—for example there are new generation halogen incandescent lamps that look exactly the same. I hear we have another person saying they hate them. It is based on what the bulbs look like. We actually have lamps that look exactly the same as the old-style incandescent lamps but they use 30 percent less energy and they last twice as long. These are not fluorescents—they have no mercury—but unfortunately compared with fluorescents the savings are not quite as high. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister telling the House that the Government spokesperson for energy efficiency did not know that this work was to be done to verify the claims made in the  
Investigate 
 magazine; and in any event would it not have been simply a matter for the Government spokesperson on energy efficiency to commission the inquiry herself—or in fact is the relationship between the Greens and the Government now so bad that such activity cannot take place? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In contrast I have a very open relationship with Jeanette Fitzsimons and she has phoned me to express her views on these things in the last day.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17247] 
9.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: How has the country’s electricity system coped with record low inflows into New Zealand’s hydro lakes? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I am pleased to say that all those involved have managed the situation very well even though inflows into our hydro lakes by early June were the lowest since 1947. By comparison hydro inflows were higher in the 1992 dry year when National was in Government yet lake levels ended up much lower and drastic power savings were needed to get through the winter. We are better off this year thanks to the Electricity Commission better industry coordination and improving supply margins. That is why there was no crisis despite Mr Brownlee’s most fervent prayers. 
Dave Hereora 
: How much did the public savings campaign assist? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I would like once again to thank the public of New Zealand for their efforts. As many have quite rightly noted long-term prudent use of electricity is good for the back pocket as well as for the environment and the country. The campaign led to 4 percent savings in electricity use overall with State sector savings achieving as much as 7 percent. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm the following things: that this winter is the fourth under the Labour Government where New Zealanders have been asked to seriously save power that forced power savings this winter have knocked $3 billion out of the economy that spot prices have hit record levels and that the power savings campaign started far too late; if so why is the Minister now crowing in this House when security of electrical supply is not something his Government has anything at all to be proud of? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I can confirm that notwithstanding the lowest inflow recorded since 1947 for the 3 months to June we have managed very well. In terms of spot prices of course that is the intention of an electricity market: there are increases in the spot market when there is a shortage of the goods that are being sold.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17243] 
5.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received about the success of the 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 One year on from the launch of 20 free hours’ early childhood education for all 3 and 4-year-olds there has been a dramatic increase in enrolments from 65000 to 85000. This policy was condemned by the National Party when 20 free hours was introduced by Labour. The then National Party spokesperson said that we would never reach the level of enrolment we have today. National got it wrong again. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What other reports has he seen about the 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have seen a report slipped out with no fanfare in the middle of the last parliamentary adjournment where National’s spokesperson on early childhood education Paula Bennett reversed 18 months of sour criticism of free early childhood education and now says that National will offer the same policy as well. Of course as always National qualifies its support for one of our popular policies by withdrawing the word “free” from its policy. The only message that parents and the public can draw is that National has no intention of continuing free 20 hours’ early childhood education for all 3 and 4-year-olds.
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17245] 
7.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What advice has she received about holding a citizens initiated referendum alongside a general election? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have received advice from the Chief Electoral Officer that holding a citizens initiated referendum alongside a general election would cause significant problems. The referendum held at the same time as the 1999 general election caused voter confusion congestion in polling places and significantly delayed the preliminary results. His advice to me was to hold a postal ballot should a referendum be required. At this stage no petition has been certified as reaching the standard to trigger such a referendum. 
Judy Turner 
: Can we take from that answer that the Government is ruling out holding a citizens initiated referendum on election day later this year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Government has taken the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer not to hold a citizens initiated referendum alongside a general election. If there was a need for one—and we have no decision as to whether we need one—it would done by postal ballot. 
Louisa Wall 
: Tena koutou katoa. What led to the introduction of the option to hold referenda by postal ballot? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000 was enacted to provide a simple and cost-effective alternative to holding referenda at the ballot box. This legislation was introduced by a National Government in October 1999 and it was dealt with in a bipartisan manner. The processes in the legislation are modelled on the successful referendum on compulsory superannuation which was held by post in 1997. The experience of the 1997 referendum was that voters found the process simple and that there was a high rate of participation with an 80.3 percent turn-out.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
[Volume:648;Page:17232] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If it is a different point of order that is fine. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Just to be clear now that means that a member could raise a matter of privilege about a specific case—say someone not correctly declaring his or her pecuniary interests—and although the specific case might not be referred to the Privileges Committee the fact that the issue has been raised once or twice before might mean that the matter generally is sent to the Privileges Committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is talking to the same point of order. Please be seated.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
[Volume:648;Page:17232] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No Mr Hide you have had your say and I think we have understood your point quite clearly thank you. And it is probably questionable whether the matter is a question of order but I was quite happy to hear you explain it. I reiterate that the matter of Heather Roy’s raising the matter was not sent to the Privileges Committee. That was quite clear. I made it quite clear at the time. Mr Hide you questioned me to make sure that you had understood it and you said it was clear. Nothing has changed between now and then. However the general issue has been raised from time to time and it seemed appropriate that there was some clarification of the general issue between this House and the courts.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — European Parliament—Delegation for Relations with Australia and New Zealand 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — European Parliament—Delegation for Relations with Australia and New Zealand 
[Volume:648;Page:17231] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Delegation for Relations with Australia and New Zealand from the European Parliament led by Mr David Martin is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
King Annette: Motions — New Zealand Police—Death of Sergeant Derek Wootton 
King Annette: Motions — New Zealand Police—Death of Sergeant Derek Wootton 
[Volume:648;Page:17231] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That this House mourn the loss of Porirua Police Sergeant Derek Wootton while on duty on 11 July 2008; place on record its gratitude for the sacrifices New Zealand Police staff make willingly on behalf of New Zealand citizens every day in the course of their work; and convey its deep sympathy to Sergeant Derek Wootton’s family friends and colleagues. 
Motion agreed to.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
[Volume:648;Page:17231] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 A matter still remains for the Minister of State Services. He said to the House in answer to a question that he could not answer Heather Roy’s questions and he accused her of breaching suppression orders when that was factually incorrect. Furthermore he laid a complaint with the Privileges Committee. I think the honourable thing for the Minister of State Services to do is to apologise to Heather Roy because Justice France has said that the Minister was incorrect and also to withdraw his privilege complaint because he said that Heather Roy had shown “disgraceful conduct bringing the House into disrepute”. Heather Roy did no such thing as has been reinforced by Justice France’s decision where he refused to make any change to the suppression orders because nothing that was said by Heather Roy or others could be prevented. 
Rodney Hide 
: Speaking to the point of order—
Parker David: Points of Order — Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
Parker David: Points of Order — Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
[Volume:648;Page:17231] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 My understanding of your ruling Madam Speaker was that there was no breach of privilege by Heather Roy because we have absolute privilege in this House but none the less the question of the wisdom of people abusing that privilege and naming people when they ought not to be named was something that did need to be considered in a general sense by the Privileges Committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Points of order will be heard in silence.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
[Volume:648;Page:17231] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This relates to a decision of yours on 3 July where you ruled that there was a general question of privilege relating to the exercise of the privilege of freedom of speech by my colleague Heather Roy. Six days later Justice Simon France published his determination on the suppression order where he found at paragraph 27 the following: “the Judge who is said to have made the suppression order says he didn’t; the actual text of the suppression ruling does not contain any such suppression. … There is no order suppressing Mr Barclay’s involvement in the Witness Protection Programme.” Therefore the complaint that Mr Parker made was factually incorrect and the basis on which you sent this matter to the Privileges Committee was legally and factually incorrect. There was no suppression order. Heather Roy was entitled to say exactly what she said in Parliament; in fact she is entitled to say it on the steps of Parliament. I ask you to consider this matter because some very serious allegations were made against my colleague Heather Roy. She now finds herself with an issue before the Privileges Committee when the judge himself has said that there was no suppression order relating to what my colleague Heather Roy said.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:648;Page:17305] 
Voting 
Correction 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
:  
In respect of the third reading of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill the result of the vote needs to be amended. The correct result is that the Ayes are 69 and the Noes are 50.
Motions — New Zealand Police—Death of Sergeant Derek Wootton 
Motions — New Zealand Police—Death of Sergeant Derek Wootton 
[Volume:648;Page:17231] 
Tuesday 22 July 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
New Zealand Police—Death of Sergeant Derek Wootton 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That this House mourn the loss of Porirua Police Sergeant Derek Wootton while on duty on 11 July 2008; place on record its gratitude for the sacrifices New Zealand Police staff make willingly on behalf of New Zealand citizens every day in the course of their work; and convey its deep sympathy to Sergeant Derek Wootton’s family friends and colleagues. 
Motion agreed to.
Visitors — European Parliament—Delegation for Relations with Australia and New Zealand 
Visitors — European Parliament—Delegation for Relations with Australia and New Zealand 
[Volume:648;Page:17231] 
Visitors 
European Parliament—Delegation for Relations with Australia and New Zealand 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Delegation for Relations with Australia and New Zealand from the European Parliament led by Mr David Martin is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Simich Clem: Voting — Correction 
Simich Clem: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:648;Page:17305] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
:  
In respect of the third reading of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill the result of the vote needs to be amended. The correct result is that the Ayes are 69 and the Noes are 50.