edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:634;Page:5344] 
1.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill 
: Will she consider proposing amendments to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill to include a defence for parents acting to restrain their children; if so what form will this amendment take? 
SUE BRADFORD (Member in charge of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill): 
 Yes I am considering supporting an amendment to my bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act. One of the amendments that I am looking at supporting is to amend the bill so that the bill makes it clear that parents would not be breaking the law if for example they were to restrain their child where the child was about to attack people or property where the child was in danger or where the parent was putting the child into a room for time out. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is the member considering any other amendments to the bill; if so what might they be? 
SUE BRADFORD 
: Yes I am considering at least one other amendment if not more amendments to the bill. But that is part of the normal select committee process and I look forward to working with other members of the Justice and Electoral Committee on amendments. I also welcome the opportunity to speak with the member about this matter in more detail should he so desire. 
Chester Borrows 
: Supplementary— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Normally with questions to members there is one supplementary question. I will take Mr Borrows’ question but no more questions after that. 
Chester Borrows 
: Will the member agree that most groups both for and against the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act want the same three things: to send the message that child abuse is wrong to stop those who seriously assault their children from hiding behind section 59 of that Act and to prevent good parents who lightly smack their children from being liable to prosecution; will she support such an amendment to her bill because it is not only desirable but also necessary to achieve those objectives? 
SUE BRADFORD 
: I think that most if not all submitters on the bill and most MPs would support the first two propositions. The third is more debatable. As to the question of amendments those will be considered in detail in the select committee of which the member is a member. So he can be part of working on those amendments with us.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:634;Page:5342] 
11.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women's Affairs 
: What reports if any has she received encouraging women to enter non-traditional apprenticeships and trades? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs) 
: 
 Yesterday the human rights commissioner in the shape of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Judy McGregor launched a publication called  
Give Girls a Go 
!. This report tells the stories of young women who through the Modern Apprenticeships programme have been able to enter areas of employment such as joinery and building that were previously considered off limits for women. The publication also contains favourable comments from their employers who have seen real advantages in encouraging women into non-traditional fields. I commend the report to the House. 
Sue Moroney 
: What barriers exist in society for women taking up non-traditional roles? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As the report shows not being aware of opportunities is an enormous barrier to career choices for young women. Unfortunately there are some groups in New Zealand whose beliefs dictate that men make all the decisions and women are treated as second-class citizens unable to participate in any areas of New Zealand life. One of these groups is the Exclusive Brethren whose beliefs limit choices for women which is why their alignment to a major political party represents such a threat to the advancement of women in New Zealand if its policies were ever to be implemented.
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:634;Page:5341] 
10.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Is he satisfied with the collection rate of child support from liable parents; if not why not? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I would always like to see the collection rate for child support be higher and that is one of the reasons behind the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) which is currently before the House. That bill is designed to get more money directly to children. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister believe that the minimum formula assessment of $730 per year or $14 per week is adequate to provide for the seven eight nine or even 10 children it currently is providing for? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: There will always be issues around the way the formula is developed and applied. The important question is to make sure that the money raised from child support goes to the children. At the moment $651 million of the $1.1 billion taken in child support is penalties which never go to the children. My focus is on having the $450 million that is owed for those children directed to them. 
Judith Collins 
: Why has he not increased the minimum child support payment to a level that “better [reflects] the costs of raising a child” as United Future’s policy promises to do? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The issue of the cost of a child and the cost of raising a child is under consideration. I have recently had discussions with the Australian authorities regarding the new formula that they are adopting and it is something we will look at to see how applicable it is here in terms of a translation. 
Judith Collins 
: Why is he allowing parents with outstanding child support debt to leave New Zealand when that is directly opposed to United Future’s own policy which is “do not allow them”—parents—“to leave the country with debt outstanding”; why is it still happening? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: We have a reciprocal agreement with Australia regarding the collection of child support obligations on both sides of the Tasman. One of the reasons why we have a large outflow at the moment is the high level of penalties. The Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) seeks to remove those penalty restrictions for a number of those people in return for their entering into a repayment regime. 
Judith Collins 
: Why is it acceptable that of the 65319 liable parents assessed to pay only $14 per week towards the upkeep of their children 44339 are not managing to sustain even that $14 per week payment? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: That goes back to the point I referred to in the primary answer. We do need to improve collection rates. Where there are impediments they need to be removed. One of the big impediments for a number of people at the moment is the very high level of penalties. I remind the member that none of the penalty payments go to the children. I would much rather that the focus was on making liable parents pay what they owe and on having that money directed to the children to whom it ought to be directed.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:634;Page:5341] 
9.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Has he received a report claiming that defence spending was reduced from 1.8 percent to 0.9 percent of GDP; if so is the claim correct? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yes I have seen such a report. It is in the pamphlet I am holding which was produced by the Exclusive Brethren to support the National Party and it attributes that cut to the Labour Government. The defence spending cut from 1.8 percent to 0.9 percent of GDP in fact occurred between 1990 and 1997 encompassing the first two terms of the previous National Government. The claim that Labour was responsible for that is just one of the blatant lies promoted by the Exclusive Brethren in support of National at the last election—notwithstanding the biblical injunction not to bear false witness. 
Jill Pettis 
: What other claims were put out in that report? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is a long list of claims and I cannot go through all of them. But again they are demonstrably untrue. They talk about Labour decimating Defence Force numbers; in fact the 6000 cut in Defence Force employees was again under the previous National Government. They talk about the rundown in Orion and Hercules aircraft at the very time when probably around $600 million was being spent on modernising them and giving them life extensions. But the truly extraordinary claim in this pamphlet is that Labour preferred appeasement and pacifist ideals. I describe that claim as extraordinary because it is made by a sect that refuses to take up arms in defence of our country but that expects others to do so on its behalf. The track record is clear: East Timor the Solomon Islands and Afghanistan are just a few of the deployments made under the Labour-led Government and they prove that the claim that Labour pursued appeasement is nothing but another blatant lie. 
Jill Pettis 
: What has been the increase in spending on defence from 1999 to 2006 in dollar terms and what is the trend in Defence Force personnel numbers? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: These figures again contradict the lies put out in the Exclusive Brethren pamphlet. Defence expenditure was $1 billion in 1999; in 2006 it rose to $1.4 billion—an increase of 40 percent. With the $4.6 billion in the Defence Sustainability Initiative in last year’s Budget Defence Force personnel will increase by an estimated 12 to 15 percent with actual numbers in the last year alone having gone up from around 10600 to 11200.
Cullen Michael: Privilege — Officers of the House—Attendance at Employment Court 
Cullen Michael: Privilege — Officers of the House—Attendance at Employment Court 
[Volume:634;Page:5327] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Clerk of the House of Representatives and other officers of the House to have leave to attend before the Employment Court at Wellington and subject to article 9 of section 1 of the Bill of Rights 1688 to give evidence in the action  
Alan Witcombe 
 v  
Clerk of the House of Representatives 
 (No: WRC12/06). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Clark Helen: Motions — Terrorist Attack—September 11 2001 
Clark Helen: Motions — Terrorist Attack—September 11 2001 
[Volume:634;Page:5327] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That this House recalls with sadness the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 5 years ago with their shocking scale of devastation and loss of life; that the House remembers the two New Zealand citizens who along with so many citizens of the United States and more than 90 other countries were killed that day; and that the House reaffirm its condemnation of all forms of terrorism wherever and whenever they occur and its resolve to support efforts to eliminate terrorism. 
Motion agreed to. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Clark Helen: Obituaries — His Majesty King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV King of Tonga 
Clark Helen: Obituaries — His Majesty King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV King of Tonga 
[Volume:634;Page:5327] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That this House notes with sadness the death of His Majesty King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV King of Tonga; that it extends its condolences to the members of the Royal Family and the people of Tonga at this time and looks forward to continuing good relations with Tonga. 
Motion agreed to. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Privilege — Officers of the House—Attendance at Employment Court 
Privilege — Officers of the House—Attendance at Employment Court 
[Volume:634;Page:5327] 
Privilege 
Officers of the House—Attendance at Employment Court 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Clerk of the House of Representatives and other officers of the House to have leave to attend before the Employment Court at Wellington and subject to article 9 of section 1 of the Bill of Rights 1688 to give evidence in the action  
Alan Witcombe 
 v  
Clerk of the House of Representatives 
 (No: WRC12/06). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Motions — Terrorist Attack—September 11 2001 
Motions — Terrorist Attack—September 11 2001 
[Volume:634;Page:5327] 
Motions 
Terrorist Attack—September 11 2001 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That this House recalls with sadness the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 5 years ago with their shocking scale of devastation and loss of life; that the House remembers the two New Zealand citizens who along with so many citizens of the United States and more than 90 other countries were killed that day; and that the House reaffirm its condemnation of all forms of terrorism wherever and whenever they occur and its resolve to support efforts to eliminate terrorism. 
Motion agreed to. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Obituaries — His Majesty King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV King of Tonga 
Obituaries — His Majesty King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV King of Tonga 
[Volume:634;Page:5327] 
Tuesday 12 September 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
Obituaries 
His Majesty King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV King of Tonga 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That this House notes with sadness the death of His Majesty King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV King of Tonga; that it extends its condolences to the members of the Royal Family and the people of Tonga at this time and looks forward to continuing good relations with Tonga. 
Motion agreed to. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
[Volume:634;Page:5427] 
1.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Does he agree with the statement today by electricity commissioner Roy Hemmingway: “I can only conclude that I am being removed from office because I stood up to the government as an independent regulator should. I have insisted that regulatory decisions be on the basis of law and the facts and not on what politicians want.” and his further statement that the politicisation of the Electricity Commission by the Government will hurt both electricity investors and consumers; if so why has the Government abused its powers and interfered with the work of the Electricity Commission? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 No I do not. The commissioner has served his full 3-year term in accordance with the terms of his appointment. Neither Mr Hemmingway nor anyone else in his position has an automatic right to appointment for a second term. It is true that Mr Hemmingway has competently overseen a complex and heavy workload at the commission for which I thank him. Nevertheless it is also true that a dysfunctional relationship between the Electricity Commission and Transpower has developed which the Government has moved to resolve through changes on both sides of the divide. We have chosen to do that for the benefit of the electricity system as a whole and of consumers throughout New Zealand. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What does it say about this Government’s respect for independent statutory officers when the Prime Minister dismisses the views of the Auditor-General and he sacks an electricity commissioner for standing up to the Government; is that not proof of the adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The commissioner has not been sacked. The commissioner has served his 3-year term. I repeat that given the dysfunctional relationship between the Electricity Commission and Transpower the Government has moved to advance that issue through changes on both sides of the divide. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Standing Order 379(3) permits only one supplementary question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the statement from Mr Roy Hemmingway which contradicts the statement put out also by the Minister and points out the interference and the confusion there is in policies and how electricity investors and consumers will lose from that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table a copy of my letter to Mr Hemmingway confirming that he will not be appointed for a second term. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Wong Pansy: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5486] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The National Party supports the passage of the Securities Legislation Bill but I take the opportunity in the 25 seconds left to alert people to tune in to the radio tomorrow afternoon when I will continue to dissect some of the major issues. I am sure that everybody will be waiting with interest. With that I say that a very cooperative style has been taken in the passage of this legislation. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Standards and Conformance Bill without amendment and that the Committee had divided it into two bills and progress on the Securities Legislation Bill. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5482] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 59 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Dalziel Lianne: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5478] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Yes I did have the time to have a look at Pansy Wong’s proposed amendment but I do not think the amendment she is proposing would do what she wants it to do. I want to give some background to it. 
The Takeovers Panel decided to go out and consult on what it felt was a problem in relation to schemes of arrangement and amalgamations under the Companies Act and the Takeovers Act. Interestingly both of those pieces of legislation were passed in 1993 so the Government of the day did intend for different rules to apply and specifically allowed for schemes of arrangement under the Companies Act. I do not think that an amendment moved on the night as the bill is going through the Committee is a good way of resolving this. I know that the member has chosen to take up the Australian language but unfortunately that does not resolve the fact that the Companies Act still has the other provisions within it. So the inclusion of this within the Takeovers Act would not actually stop what has been occurring from occurring again. 
The Takeovers Panel heard submissions over a 10-day period. That—even with my Small Business Advisory Group representational role—is not long enough to actually qualify as the level of stakeholder input required to make the changes that need to be made. My officials are certainly looking at the report that I received from the chair of the Takeovers Panel probably a fortnight or 3 weeks ago—it was not very long ago—and I understand there is to be a report to the select committee that is looking at the Business Law Reform Bill because the Takeovers Panel made a submission on the Business Law Reform Bill at the same time that it provided me with its results of its consideration of the subject matter. 
So it is not that I am unsympathetic to the issue; I think the issue does need to be resolved. But I do not believe that an amendment to the Business Law Reform Bill—which tragically I have already been told would be out of the scope of the bill anyway and that is not a decision I get to have any say over—is appropriate. On the other hand dealing with it in this way would not be appropriate either. I am glad the member feels that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. 
We want to go through a proper process now with the Takeovers Panel recommendations. I should say that the Takeovers Panel did not get unanimity from the community sector. Some felt it was too much to leave it entirely within the jurisdiction of the Takeovers Panel and some felt that the Takeovers Panel recommendation that it be heard by the High Court in the consideration of schemes of arrangement would in fact resolve the problem. So I think we have a wee way to go before the issue is resolved one way or the other but I thank the member for raising it in the spirit that she has.
Vote: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5477] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 59 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5476] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
3AANew subsection 10(caaa) inserted 
The principal Act is amended by inserting after subsection 10(caa) the following subsection: 
10(caaa) 
to keep under review the operation of the securities markets and to comment on those operations to the appropriate body or the Minister; and.
Benson-Pope David: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5476] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tizard Judith: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5475] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Fairbrother Russell: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5473] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. This is a large part and there are still people debating the issues.
Hereora Dave: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5471] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Members 
: Part 1 is huge! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes Part 1 is a very big part—it is huge. I call Tim Roper. I apologise to the member—Tim Groser.
Dalziel Lianne: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5466] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I really would like to respond positively in the spirit of the way it has been presented—the Opposition is supporting this legislation and I am very grateful for that. I am a little bit concerned because I had only just seen the amendment but I refer the member to the existing section 10(1)(caa) in the Securities Act which states that one of the functions of the commission shall be “to keep under review activities on securities markets and to comment on those activities to the appropriate body; and (cab) on the Minister’s request to advise the Minister on the conduct rules or amendments to those rules proposed by securities exchanges;”. 
The member seems to think there is a difference between the word “activities” and the word “operation” and I actually think that the language of the existing Act is broad enough to pick up on those points. But I would like to say that I felt the Commerce Committee members handled that matter particularly well when they looked at the financial review of the Securities Commission and I felt that the Securities Commission explained itself particularly well in its annual report which has just recently been tabled. It did explain that it was very difficult that at the time it was developing that early relationship with the stock exchange for the co-regulatory regime to work there was the Access Brokerage case which it then had to deal with and set aside the time it was spending on developing that relationship. As soon as the Access Brokerage decision came out the Securities Commission was quite clear and acknowledged that the stock exchange had changed some of its practices and procedures as a result of Access Brokerage and then it was able to move on. The relationship has developed very well ever since that time. So I am very pleased that the member has raised that point. 
I do not think the amendment to the legislation is necessary because the Securities Commission has that ability to review activities on securities markets and that is indeed the function it is carrying out very well now.
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5465] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Dalziel Lianne: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5465] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Standards Amendment Bill and the Testing Laboratory Registration Amendment Bill  
divided into Standards Amendment Bill and the Testing Laboratory Registration Amendment Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 49 
.
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5465] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5465] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Stewart Barbara: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5463] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First. I was not going to do so but I am compelled to get to my feet by the speakers I have heard. I have never heard so many erroneous statements in my life. It is important to realise that this is not a compulsory accreditation being imposed on the businesses of New Zealand. It is a totally voluntary regime that is there to help businesses in the export industry to have some accreditation to an internationally recognised standard. 
The businesses involved in this accreditation know the costs before they become involved. I know that because in my previous employment I was involved in working to an international standard ISO 9002 and we knew the costs. We knew what was involved. So for members to say that this is extra red tape and that it will increase costs is absolutely ridiculous and for them to say that the businesses do not know the requirements to meet these standards and will need seminars to get them to meet the standards is outrageous. The manuals are there in clear black and white to assist businesses to reach the standards. 
When we hear about accreditation costs the costs are dependent on the size of the business and one expects to have those costs. One knows the costs before one gets into this particular regime. They are outlined by the agencies when one applies to have one’s product or service certified. So it is quite astounding for members to say that there will be extra red tape and costs when a business actually goes into this accreditation regime knowing that this will happen. 
We know that these standards support New Zealand’s trade. They support a health and safety environment. In a manufacturing industry particularly—like the dairy industry—one has to have that certification to sell product overseas. It is the only way that one can give one’s customers an assurance that the product meets the standards that are required and often the product standards are set by the country one is exporting to. 
Before I left my previous employment I was very pleased to see that standards were made fit for purpose because prior to that one could manufacture a lead lifejacket—which I know some National members would like to have—but that lifejacket was absolutely not fit for purpose. Not many people want a lead lifejacket; they want one that will actually help them when they get into difficulties out on the water. 
So some of the arguments I have heard tonight are totally astounding. This is a good Standards and Conformance Bill. It meets the requirements of the people who are involved in this particular industry. I hope that I hear some more accuracy in speeches before the end of the night.
Simich Clem: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5461] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I give the call I point out that some members may have thought I was hasty in putting Part 2 to the vote. That was not the case. We had a number of speakers on a previous sitting day. All bar one of those contributors were not speaking to the part in question. In no way were they speaking to Part 2 so I thought we had had enough and I took the question. We are now on to clauses 1 and 2. It is a wide-ranging debate.
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5461] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 
 agreed to.
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5460] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to.
Barnett Tim: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5460] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hereora Dave: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5459] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Wagner Nicky: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Standards and Conformance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5457] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 We were discussing the Standards and Conformance Bill and I was worried about the standards concerning noisy vehicles and the lack of a testing regime for noisy vehicles. Our legislation is out of sync with international standards. It has become weaker and harder to enforce over the last few years while most countries including the UK Australia and those in Europe have tightened their standards. Australia has updated its requirements so that all new cars need to meet a test of 76 decibels while New Zealand cars have to meet a test of only 81 decibels. 
But the real problem is that we allow the modification of cars with no commitment to a regular testing regime to ensure that even our inadequate standards are met. Cheap Japanese cars with modified noisy exhausts have been a consistent persistent and growing problem ever since Labour came to power and over the last 6 years it has done absolutely nothing to solve it. If New Zealand is going to conform with international vehicle noise standards we need to introduce a regular and compulsory testing regime with an approved objective test through vehicle-testing stations. The key is to have an objective test because that is the only way we can guarantee consistency. 
National opposes the Standards and Conformance Bill but we do support improved and updated vehicle noise standards and the introduction of a standardised objective test in vehicle-testing stations to ensure conformance to international standards. So I ask the Minister for Transport Safety Mr Duynhoven to please get on with it.
Barnett Tim: Business of the House 
Barnett Tim: Business of the House 
[Volume:634;Page:5457] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for Harry Duynhoven to sit briefly in the Chair in the forthcoming debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:634;Page:5457] 
Business of the House 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for Harry Duynhoven to sit briefly in the Chair in the forthcoming debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Tisch Lindsay: Communications Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Communications Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5457] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to rise for the dinner break. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The question has to be put on the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Opposition has suggested that the House rise because it has made such good progress. The member is seeking leave for that. Is there any objection? If members do not want to give leave I will put the question. 
Bill read a second time. 
Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Locke Keith: Communications Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Locke Keith: Communications Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5453] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to indicate our support for the Communications Legislation Bill. It is very important to have a proper regulatory framework around access and to avoid interference. Maryan Street talked about the problem of interference with band expanders and that sort of thing. From the listeners’ point of view there are two things they want: firstly to have no interference so that they are able to hear their radio stations clearly; and secondly to be able to hear all the types of stations they want to hear. 
There is a huge range of stations now. In Auckland it is very hard to keep track of them as they rise and fall and change names and to find out what their little niches are. As the preceding speaker Hone Harawira has indicated there is a very dynamic Maori radio sector that requires access at an appropriate price. There is another category I am very interested in. When I was living in Wellington in the early 1980s the Wellington Latin America Committee was organising a Wellington Access Radio programme every couple of weeks. That was a quite a challenge but quite an experience at the same time. The Access Radio network which has now expanded to many cities has been very dynamic and Wellington Access Radio was the founder of that trend. 
Those stations—and I think this is the same with the iwi stations—have made their waves got their audiences and developed their skills with very little recompense. They are not well-heeled stations so it is important to have a radio network system that allows all of those community organisations—iwi and non-iwi—to have ready access to frequencies rather than to be shut out because they are too weak and not to have a totally commercial mode whereby community stations are competing with the big commercial stations and just cannot get their foot in the door. We have preserved that access for many years. As Hone Harawira said there is a guarantee from the Government that there will be consultations over the distribution of frequencies and over regulations. The Green Party certainly supports those consultations. 
We support this bill. Thank you.
Stewart Barbara: Communications Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Communications Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5449] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in the second reading debate of the Communications Legislation Bill. I will take only a very brief call. 
I must say at the outset that New Zealand First did not have a member on the Commerce Committee so we were not able to follow up with the various submitters any aspects of the bill. We note that the bill was basically intended to improve the regulation of the communications sector. The select committee report for this particular bill recommends that the bill is passed and it contains only very minor amendments. There were no minority views written so obviously most parties were in agreement with the bill. It was interesting to see too that there was very little media interest in the bill. To follow that up there were only five submitters on the bill. 
During the first reading of this bill the Hon Brian Donnelly commended the Hon Maurice Williamson for his knowledge of the physics lying behind this bill. He said he had a lot of confidence in the honourable member. As we all know Maurice Williamson lives and breathes this type of technology which is an area that is rapidly developing. Members were told the bill is really critical to maintaining and improving the efficiency of the communications sector. New Zealand First has been supportive of this bill. We are however quite concerned about suggestions we have received that as it stands the bill poses serious threats to the wireless delivery of supplementary emergency taxi and control—and here we are talking about sewerage irrigation and dam control—services. 
New Zealand First seeks the assurance of the Minister the Hon David Cunliffe that the enactment of this bill will not lead to the confiscation of allocated frequencies or be a cause of congestion and interference in some areas of the spectrum or provide uncertainty in the future management of some frequencies. We also seek some assurance that current licensees who might be affected by the proposed changes have been consulted and have also had their concerns taken into account. Without such assurances New Zealand First would have to consider proposing amendments to the bill during the Committee stage that would address those particular matters. 
We are looking forward to further debate and discussion on this bill in the Committee stage. At this stage we are supporting the legislation in the second reading.
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5444] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Insolvency Law Reform Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5444] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Question agreed to.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
[Volume:634;Page:5421] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I know that it is normal practice to lodge applications for urgent questions prior to the beginning of question time but I note that a statement has been issued by an electricity commissioner—an independent commissioner—just 5 minutes ago saying that he is being sacked from office and expressing extreme concern about the way in which his independent decisions have been interfered with. I seek the leave of the House—and I do so now so that the Minister of Energy might have reasonable notice—to ask an urgent question of the Minister following question No. 12 in respect of the sacking of that electricity commissioner. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
[Volume:634;Page:5419] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a letter to myself from the Minister of Foreign Affairs dated 10 August 2006 in reply to my letter on concerns about the incarceration of Bruce Robinson dated 12 July 2006. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
[Volume:634;Page:5410] 
3.  
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Was it the Government’s intention that the water column and airspace in relation to the Te Arawa lakes settlement should become Crown-owned; if so is this the benchmark for all subsequent settlement legislation? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 In the Te Arawa lakes settlement the Crown and Te Arawa agreed that the Crown will retain ownership of the water column and airspace while the beds of 13 lakes transfer to Te Arawa. 
Hone Harawira 
: Given the Minister’s response does he find it reasonable that Te Arawa should be paid a storage fee for holding the Crown’s water on its lake bed and has that fee been factored into the terms of the Te Arawa lakes settlement; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No; I do not think it would be reasonable because the water itself will not be owned by either the Crown or Te Arawa. The water will continue to be regulated in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991. 
Hone Harawira 
: Following on from the Minister’s earlier comments about Crown ownership of the water has the Crown considered what it would do if Te Arawa asked it to remove its water from the lakes and how would the Crown ensure that the water it claims to own will never settle on Te Arawa - owned lake beds; or does the Minister think that this is as silly a notion as that of the Crown stratum and its ownership of water? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Unfortunately I think the member either did not hear or did not understand the answer to the first supplementary question he asked so I will repeat it for him. The water itself will not be and is not owned by the Crown or Te Arawa. It will continue to be regulated in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991. 
Hone Harawira 
: Given that the Government is confiscating Te Arawa’s rights to their lake water does this mean that the Government will now turn to confiscate all water in all lakes and rivers in Aotearoa; if yes why; if no why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: In 1922 the Crown and Te Arawa signed an agreement that confirmed the Crown’s ownership of Te Arawa lakes but even that misses the fundamental point which the member still has not grasped—that is the water itself will not be owned by either the Crown or Te Arawa.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
[Volume:634;Page:5407] 
1. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What reports has she received on adjustments to the minimum wage? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have seen a number of reports that reflect the Labour-led Government’s commitment to continue annual adjustments to the minimum wage—and consultation on the 2007 rate is under way. Since 1999 this policy has seen the minimum adult wage rise by 46 percent. That stands in stark contrast to the last National-led Government which over 9 years raised the minimum wage by less than $1 an hour. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has she received any other reports on future adjustments to the minimum wage? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. I have received one report that states: “I’m not one of the hard-core right-wingers who says: ‘Get rid of the minimum wage. You don’t need it.’ Some people take that view. I personally think it has a place and I don’t have problems with it rising.” I have seen a number of other reports stating that we should scrap the minimum wage altogether. The first report I quoted is from John Key. The others are from Dr Brash who is presumably one of the hard-core right-wingers Mr Key was referring to. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Could the Minister elaborate on some of those reports she has seen regarding the minimum wage? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: One report for example suggests we abandon not only the minimum wage but also minimum holiday entitlements parental leave and the moves to close the gender pay and employment gap. Again those are the wishes expressed by Dr Brash. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that New Zealand First is very determined not only to ensure that the minimum wage exists but to have it raised to $12 an hour before the end of this term of Parliament; will she advise whether the Government is on track to achieve that aim? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I am aware of that commitment. It is a commitment that the Labour Party along with its coalition partner the Progressive party signed up to with both New Zealand First and the Green Party as part of our Government arrangements.
Vote: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5600] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Committee report progress. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Progress reported. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Securities Legislation Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into four bills and progress on the Communications Legislation Bill. 
Report adopted.
Parker David: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5600] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee report progress.