edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11657] 
7.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What is the Government doing to combat unsolicited emails? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 The Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007 was passed to help reduce spam with a New Zealand link. The legislation took effect yesterday following a 6-month transition period to allow organisations to get their email practices and database systems in order. The Act alone will not solve the issue of spam. However enforcement agencies are now in a position to bring New Zealand - based spammers to task for all their illegitimate activities. 
Darien Fenton 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on unsolicited emails? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I have seen reports on emails being received or not received read or not read opened or not opened forwarded or not forwarded replied to or not replied to and on the contents of emails being remembered or not remembered discussed or not discussed actioned or not actioned. That report was called  
The Hollow Men 
 and although the new Act has the power to stop unsolicited emails it will not help John Key’s selective memory.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11650] 
3.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Has he seen any reports or plans that propose restrictions on commercial and recreational set-net fishing; if so what reasons are given for the restrictions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Fisheries 
: Yes I have. The Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation have produced a draft threat management plan that seeks to address all threats to Maui’s and Hector’s dolphins including fishing threats seabed mining pollution and tourism. Set netting has been identified in the draft threat management plan as a threat to Maui’s and Hector’s dolphins. The draft threat management plan contains a range of options to address that threat including further restrictions on the use of set nets by commercial and recreational fishers. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister confirm that set nets are responsible for 63 percent of Hector’s dolphin deaths where the cause of death is known and that alternative fishing methods exist for all species caught by set nets? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I cannot confirm that figure; I do not have it with me I am sorry. But from when I was the Minister of Fisheries at an earlier time I can say that it is a figure that feels to be about right. Set nets are certainly a significant part of the mortality complex of Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why has the proposal to equip all trawling vessels with monitoring systems not made it into this plan when it has been supported by both fishers and conservationists and given that in the last 2 years there were no observers on those vessels? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think it is important for the member to acknowledge that what the Government has just done in the last few days is to begin a process: to put out a draft plan so that people can comment on it. People will comment from either side of that plan and in due course decisions will need to be made. In the meantime the Government must of course remain very open-minded as to what is a reasoned response to the issue.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Points of Order — Misleading Statement to the House—5 September 2007 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Points of Order — Misleading Statement to the House—5 September 2007 
[Volume:641;Page:11645] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I believe that yesterday a member may have misled the House and I would like to provide the opportunity for him to correct the statement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. It is for any member who feels that that may have happened to do so himself or herself.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:641;Page:11645] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We remain just shy of a majority on that matter. Should anybody change his or her mind I shall happily move the matter to No. 1 straight away.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:641;Page:11645] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that. Noting that the Electoral Finance Bill is currently going through the select committee can we expect at any time the Government to move item 20 on the agenda—the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill in his name—somewhere closer to the top of the Order Paper or does it remain without the support necessary to pass it?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:641;Page:11645] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Aviation Security Legislation Bill the Statutes Amendment Bill the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill the Property Law Bill and the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. Priority will also be given to the first readings of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill and the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill.
Points of Order — Fiji Martial Law—Government Statement 
Points of Order — Fiji Martial Law—Government Statement 
[Volume:641;Page:11665] 
Points of Order 
Fiji Martial Law—Government Statement 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a relatively serious matter. I am not sure whether people in the House are aware that in recent hours martial law has been declared in Fiji. I wonder whether we might get an indication from the Deputy Prime Minister as to whether there will be a statement from the Government on that at some time today preferably to the House. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I have not been informed on this matter. I will make inquiries to see whether that is appropriate in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am of course the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs in Mr Peters’ absence.
Points of Order — Misleading Statement to the House—5 September 2007 
Points of Order — Misleading Statement to the House—5 September 2007 
[Volume:641;Page:11645] 
Points of Order 
Misleading Statement to the House—5 September 2007 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I believe that yesterday a member may have misled the House and I would like to provide the opportunity for him to correct the statement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. It is for any member who feels that that may have happened to do so himself or herself.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:641;Page:11645] 
Thursday 6 September 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Aviation Security Legislation Bill the Statutes Amendment Bill the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill the Property Law Bill and the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. Priority will also be given to the first readings of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill and the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that. Noting that the Electoral Finance Bill is currently going through the select committee can we expect at any time the Government to move item 20 on the agenda—the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill in his name—somewhere closer to the top of the Order Paper or does it remain without the support necessary to pass it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We remain just shy of a majority on that matter. Should anybody change his or her mind I shall happily move the matter to No. 1 straight away.
Peachey Allan: Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peachey Allan: Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11644] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 The Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill is intended to amend the Education Act of 1989 by establishing a new category of institution a university of technology. The National Party will support this bill going to the select committee stage because that will give an opportunity for those with a direct interest in the sector to express their views. I have to say that at this point in time the only person who has spoken to me and who is in favour of this bill is its sponsor and I do congratulate the Hon Brian Donnelly on the work he has done and on his willingness to take up the cause. 
I am also very conscious of course of the work that has been put in by Unitec and its chief executive and of the interest that organisation has in this bill. However I am also conscious that in supporting this bill going to a select committee this House will be imposing a major obligation on tertiary institutions to come before the select committee and present their view either in favour or to the contrary of this proposal. That will be an expensive and a time-consuming operation but I can assure those institutions that those of us who are on the Education and Science Committee will value their input and listen very very carefully to what they have to say. The select committee will have a very significant role to play with regard to this bill and my expectation would be that the way that the select committee goes will ultimately decide the fate of the bill. 
Some very big claims are being made on behalf of the bill and at the select committee those claims will be scrutinised very carefully. Four in particular stand out. One is the suggestion that more flexibility is needed in order to better recognise dual-sector institutions that provide pathways for both sub-degree and degree education. 
Debate interrupted.
Turner Judy: Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11642] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the first reading of the Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill. We support this first reading. We do not have representation on the select committee that will be responsible for working on this bill but we plan to keep a keen eye on what submitters have to say because this bill presents us with some very real tensions that we hope the select committee will be able to make sense of and resolve. 
On one hand we have career tracks that have progressed over the years from what may have been described in the early years as apprenticeship level training through to in this day and age with the development of technology studies and disciplines that mirror in terms of complexity and standards of competency the commitment that academic disciplines demand. On the other hand we have a growing disquiet about the possible perception that New Zealand universities are not of international standing due to a gradual process of dumbing down our definition of what constitutes a university. The tension is not about some sort of academic snobbery but rather about how we categorise institutions that provide credible training with a clear career outcome in mind alongside institutions that produce quality research as well as the teaching of academic disciplines in a way that still maintains New Zealand qualifications at an international standard that is well recognised and well understood. 
The bill suggests it seems that universities of technology can straddle the divide between a university and a polytechnic allowing students to progress through to doctoral studies and to marry in a tidy fashion both practical and theoretical practice. United Future has had some very interesting discussions within our own caucus and separately with tertiary providers about the possibility that the sponsor of this bill is suggesting. We have not currently reached a fixed position on what should happen. So on that basis we are very happy to see the bill proceed to the select committee. We believe however that there is already some confusion in New Zealand within the tertiary education sector as to how to understand and differentiate between institutions. If this bill can bring greater clarity we will be thrilled to continue to support it but we are looking for that clarity. We congratulate the sponsor of the bill on putting it forward and on being brave enough to take up the debate which is probably long overdue.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11638] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill.
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11638] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Question agreed to.
Anderton Jim: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister 15 August 
Anderton Jim: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister 15 August 
[Volume:641;Page:11624] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to correct an answer I gave when responding to a supplementary question on 15 August. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: In reply to a supplementary question on 15 August I referred to Scott Hurd an expert from Iowa State University. Mr Hurd was mistakenly referred to because the wrong name was copied from briefing papers into speaking notes prepared for question time. I should have instead referred to Associate Professor Jeff Zimmerman who is also an expert from Iowa State University.
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11611] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time.
Locke Keith: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11610] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I thank the different parties particularly the parties that support the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. But I also respect Kate Wilkinson who seemed to accept the moral basis of the bill. She said that people should be valued for the work they perform and that there should be a fair wage for fair work. Her objections to the bill seemed to be practical but had she listened to the young people who mobilised around the country—Sue Bradford and I were part of various demonstrations and even student strikes—she would have heard them saying that they needed this money not to stop them from going on to higher education but to help them to achieve it. Those people were driven to advance their careers. So I think we can knock out that practical argument that National came up with. 
National’s other argument—its only other leg to stand on—was that in some ways people have to be rewarded for skills and that employers will hire older people because they have more skills and experience. In actual fact the most skilled jobs in the economy do not have youth rates; it is the least skilled jobs in the areas of fast food and retail that have youth rates. Contrary to what Wayne Mapp said the economy will not collapse if these young people are paid a couple of extra dollars to take them to the adult minimum wage. That view is just stupid in my opinion. 
I think that the effort from all parties including the Maori Party has been tremendous. Even though the Maori Party is not supporting this bill it has been part of the campaign to get this legislation through for young people and for justice. The Green Party is totally in support of what we have achieved tonight. I particularly thank my colleague Sue Bradford for bringing this legislation forward. We can live with a position of compromise even though we have some reservations about it. But we have to recognise the great achievement that this bill is and celebrate it together. Thank you.
Smith Nick: General Debate 
Smith Nick: General Debate 
[Volume:641;Page:11591] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: I seek leave to table Nicky Hager’s  
Seeds of Distrust 
 a piece of work whose author was described by the Prime Minister and the member who has been quoting as a writer of fiction. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.
Burton Mark: General Debate 
Burton Mark: General Debate 
[Volume:641;Page:11591] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: At the beginning of my colleague’s contribution she quoted from a book which was described by Mr Williamson as a work of fiction so I seek leave to table a copy of a page from that book  
The Hollow Men 
 which reproduces a letter to Messrs Don Brash and John Key from the Exclusive Brethren. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave is sought to table that document Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.
Wilkinson Kate: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Wilkinson Kate: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:641;Page:11571] 
10.  
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Is she satisfied with the operation of section 87 of the Employment Relations Act 2000; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes I am; and I assume that Parliament for the last 30 years has also been satisfied because that section is relatively unchanged. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Does the Minister agree with the Employment Relations Authority that postal workers can go out on their runs to deliver their mail and secretly strike by deliberately dumping their mail—so that it has to be re-sorted and redelivered on another day—yet still be entitled to a full day’s wages; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I would have assumed given the member’s previous occupation that she would understand that it is totally inconsistent with constitutional conventions for a Minister to make comment on a matter that may well come before the Employment Court. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Does the Minister think that it is fair that workers secretly striking by sabotaging a business cannot be suspended but that striking workers who give notice can? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The point of section 87 is to ensure that when workers are on strike the employer suspends them and does not have any liability to pay them. If the member is proposing that employers will be required to pay striking workers in future then that would be a very interesting development that I think Business New Zealand would be delighted to respond to. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: When according to the authority the current legislation means that employers are “vulnerable to a sudden strike amounting to surprise or guerrilla tactics” does she think that only vulnerable workers not vulnerable employers deserve the protection of fair and equitable employment law? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I made very clear in the answer to the primary question I support the intention of section 87 of the Employment Relations Act. It has remained essentially unchanged over three decades before a variety of Governments in this Parliament and that is because our Parliament has consistently said that when workers are on strike the employer must be able to suspend them and not have the liability to pay them. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that in a tight labour market such as we have now it is reasonably straightforward for a striking employee or a suspended striking employee to take on temporary work with another employer; if she does recognise that can she advise whether she regards such a practice as operating in good faith; and if it is not what can be done about it? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It has always been the case that people who are on strike are in that way available for work. I would not consider that this section of the legislation appropriately covers that situation.
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister 15 August 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister 15 August 
[Volume:641;Page:11624] 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 12 to Minister 15 August 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to correct an answer I gave when responding to a supplementary question on 15 August. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: In reply to a supplementary question on 15 August I referred to Scott Hurd an expert from Iowa State University. Mr Hurd was mistakenly referred to because the wrong name was copied from briefing papers into speaking notes prepared for question time. I should have instead referred to Associate Professor Jeff Zimmerman who is also an expert from Iowa State University.
Worth Richard: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11554] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 Noting the passage of time and because the House has made such excellent progress I seek leave that the House lift early so that I am not faced with giving a broken speech. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh I withdraw the request for leave that I have just sought. I seek the call. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Dr Richard Worth. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I think one of the most interesting things about this legislation—and I hope I will have sufficient time to complete the entirety of this very extended speech—is the fact that at an early stage because of the bill’s technical complexity and difficulty the Commerce Committee engaged two experts. That was unusual although there are precedents for having engaged experts in the past. We were able to identify two quite different streams of activity in this complicated legislation that warranted what we set out to do. I do not doubt that we were hugely assisted by the reports that the two expert advisers furnished. This is difficult legislation; there is no doubt about that. The difficulty is of course seen in the title of the bill the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill. 
It is also very apparent on looking at the bill as reported back from the Commerce Committee that there has been a substantial number of changes but also—as a previous speaker has noted—that a number of issues require further review. I simply do not accept that that is proper process. It will always be the case in terms of complicated legislation where there is a large number of submissions that issues will arise at different points of the process. Just because an issue arises late that is no reason for that issue to not be resolved. There is not a great deal of sex appeal in this particular legislation so it will be difficult to get the unresolved issues back into the legislative programme. The outcome is that whereas it was once possible to resolve all of these questions it will be much more difficult now to do so. 
I want to say in general terms that copyright is a property right that exists in original works. [ 
Interruption 
] I say for the benefit of the Minister who is interrupting that the Copyright Act gives copyright owners exclusive rights that allow them to control certain aspects of a work’s exploitation while at the same time providing limited exceptions to those rights for copyright users. In that way the Act seeks to provide incentives to ensure the creation production and distribution of new creative works in a manner that meets society’s needs. I would say given the rapid changes in digital technology since the Act came into force the Government undertook— 
Debate interrupted.
Mahuta Nanaia: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11550] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 The matter has been clarified by the whip. The Supplementary Order Paper will be tabled at the appropriate stage for consideration which is during the Committee stage. I would have thought the Opposition would be delighted to hear the foreshadowing of a Supplementary Order Paper that is aligned to what the Commerce Committee was wanting. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for explaining that for the benefit of the member.
Worth Richard: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11550] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I did not say that we have either been misled or not been misled. I just seek clarification of the position. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Do you want to add anything Minister? No. I think that clears it up sufficiently. The Minister only briefly referred to that. There is no Supplementary Order Paper.
Hughes Darren: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11550] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The member is fortunate that we are considering the second reading stage of the bill at the moment so if a Supplementary Order Paper has to be considered and debated that will be done in the Committee of the whole House. That will not be tonight so the member can bone up on any material that is available in time for it. The earliest it could possibly be is on Thursday because tomorrow of course is a member’s day. I hope that assists the diligent and hard-working Mr Worth.
Worth Richard: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11550] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the course of the careful speech read to us so carefully by the Minister she made reference to an issue concerning the effect of clause 49 of the bill which repeals section 88 of the Copyright Act. My clear recollection of what she said was that an Supplementary Order Paper had been prepared but I see no sign of that on the Table of the House. I think we need clarification in the context of what will occur in this second reading debate of whether that statement is accurate.
Vote: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11547] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11545] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to add to clause 12 the following new section 12C: 
12CFunctions of the Maori Branch 
(1)The functions of the Maori Branch are— 
(a)to receive and investigate complaints from Maori— 
(i)alleging any misconduct or neglect of duty by any member of the Police; or 
(ii)concerning any practice policy or procedure of the Police affecting the person or body of persons making the complaint in a personal capacity: 
(b)to investigate of its own motion where it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to carry out an investigation in the public interest any incident involving death or serious bodily harm of a Maori person notified to the Authority by the Commissioner under section 13 of this Act: 
(c)to make recommendations which are binding on the Authority on the action(s) to be taken in respect of complaints incidents and other matters as is contemplated by this Act: 
(d)to conduct substantive periodic reviews of relationships between the Police and Maori people and report on these to the Authority. 
(2)In the course of taking action in respect of any complaint the Maori Branch may investigate any apparent misconduct or neglect of duty by a member of the Police or any Police practice policy or procedure which appears to the Authority to relate to the complaint notwithstanding that the complaint itself does not refer to that misconduct neglect practice policy or procedure.
Hughes Darren: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11544] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson H V Ross: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11530] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The debate on this part includes schedule 1.
Guy Nathan: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11526] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 The Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill is very very important. Just last weekend I was out with the Levin police until the wee hours up in Horowhenua and that gave me a great insight into what actually goes on in the small hours in my community. In particular I was intrigued by a couple of people in the cells. One had breached bail conditions and the other had had an altercation with his partner. It was interesting to see that a staff member had to go back and forth checking on these two people in the cells on a very regular basis and recording whether there were any incidents. 
With this legislation incidents such as deaths in police cells or police shootings would be covered by the Independent Police Conduct Authority. The authority will cover things like “misconduct or neglect of duty on the part of any member of the police” and will “consider whether the relevant practices policies and procedures have been complied with.” National fully supports the Committee stage of the bill. 
The membership of the police authority will likely be increased to five members but—I think I read somewhere—the quorum might be down to two. National might have a concern about that and I would be interested in the Minister taking a call to clarify that matter. 
It is important that there will still be secrecy around the authority as that will enable a witness to come along and be frank with the evidence he or she can give. This is covered in Part 1 of the bill. 
The other important part of this bill is that it makes sure there is an acceptable code of conduct for the police. The police do a fantastic job in our community in keeping people safe but at certain times they are under a huge amount of pressure. Ultimate power is left with the police. It is very important that the authority is independent and it is important that we have this amendment going through the Committee stage this evening. National supports the legislation. 
 I guess that for people in the community going to the police is the first and often the last call for them when in awkward situations. I think that those people in our community need to be particularly aware that an independent body is looking over them. It is great that we are going to have a current or former judge appointed by the Governor-General to sit over this very important—as the Minister called it—committee. 
I would like if I could to allow the Minister to take a call at some stage in order to explain the quorum of two and I look forward to other contributions from people around the Chamber on the very important amendment bill in front of us this evening.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11490] 
12.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: What recent initiatives has she announced aimed at reducing family violence in our communities? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Today the Prime Minister and I launched a public awareness campaign for action against family violence. The aim of this campaign is to build a stronger sense of community responsibility to end family violence in our country. The campaign has a simple message. Family violence is not OK but it is OK to ask for help. 
Dianne Yates 
: What other initiatives has the Government put in place to help reduce family violence? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Our Government has a long history of combating family violence. Some highlights are the funding for Child Youth and Family Services has been increased from $291.8 million when our Government came into office to $468.3 million this year; funding to community-based family violence prevention agencies has been boosted by 32 percent over that period; in 2002 the Minister for Social Development and Employment Steve Maharey launched Te Rito the New Zealand Family Violence Prevention Strategy; and in 2005 we established the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families. Last month the Minister of Health Pete Hodgson launched the Ministry of Health family violence intervention programme which is focused on providing practical advice and tools to thousands of health professionals who come into daily contact with the impact of family violence. 
Dianne Yates 
: Has the Minister received any recent reports regarding the public awareness campaign she outlined in her primary answer? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. I received a rather ill-informed statement saying that people do not need a TV advert to tell them that abuse is unacceptable and that it will not work. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Who said that? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That statement was from John Key. I am very pleased that Judith Collins ignored that statement and showed her support for the campaign with her attendance at the launch. It is my view with that attendance and the attendance of every other political party at the cross-party working group to prevent family violence that finally our Parliament can say with a united voice: “Family violence is not OK but it is OK to ask for help.”
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11485] 
8.  
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is the Government prepared to increase funding so that Plunket can provide a full service involving house calls on all new babies and their mothers for the first year of a baby’s life with clinical visits thereafter? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: Government funding for Well Child services has been increasing for a number of years now. Each year this Government spends $41.4 million on Well Child services to mothers and babies. The funding for the Plunket provision of Well Child services has increased by close to 91 percent over the past 7 years to reach close to $36 million each year. The Government has committed a further $23.4 million over the next 4 years for the B4 School health check. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister accept that instead of pouring millions of dollars into a variety of attempts to rein in child abuse it would be better to fund a comprehensive Plunket service with in-the-house face-to-face contact; and surely that is much to be preferred to for example one of his colleague’s exhortations that New Zealanders need to “look over their neighbours’ fences” as if child abuse normally occurs outside? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If the member is asking about face-to-face child visits by Plunket I can inform him that Plunket is funded to provide additional visits to all first-time parents it enrols which are an additional four face-to-face visits per first-time parent and to other families assessed as having high needs. I think that the lowering of infant mortality and the extending of New Zealanders’ life expectancy are both very good signs that this Government has a very clear hand and a strategic direction that it is following to the benefit of all New Zealanders. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on child health outcomes? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes. As I indicated earlier to the House New Zealand’s infant mortality rates are steadily declining down from 7.1 deaths per 1000 live births in 1997 to 5.1 deaths per 1000 live births in March 2007. As I say that is an improvement of 28 percent in recent years and I would have thought that most representative Parliaments in the world would be very cheerful at that sort of news. I am waiting to hear the cheers from the other side of the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister have an appreciation of both the huge importation of knowledge and the confidence boost that new mums receive from regular Plunket visits not to mention the multiple health benefits that result from Plunket’s Well Child contacts; if so can he think of a better return to our society than that flowing from the reinstatement of a comprehensive year-long home Plunket service? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Of course I agree with that and I say as I have indicated to the member the Government is funding Plunket for an extension to its services particularly to new parents.
Sharples Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sharples Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11478] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 My question is directed particularly to the Minister of Maori Affairs. Because he is not here can I defer the question to another time? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Are you seeking leave? 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I am seeking leave. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7254] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member also had to have a fast eye and the ball was not coming for him. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. That is not a point of order.
Peters Winston: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Peters Winston: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7254] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I sat down because I saw you raising your hand to the bell Madam Speaker. Unlike Gerry Brownlee I played in the backs where one had to have a fast mind.
Brownlee Gerry: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7254] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I notice that the leader of New Zealand First could not quite last for 20 minutes. Perhaps those members would like to split that time with another one of their speakers for the next 2 minutes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is out of order and that the member is not the only one who did not take the whole time.
Cullen Michael: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Cullen Michael: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7250] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document in which Mr Key says he was very interested in discussion around alternatives on monetary policy and on 12 December in my office outlined how a variable interest rate levy on mortgages could work did not express any opposition to it and agreed there should be further work done. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Cullen Michael: Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
Cullen Michael: Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
[Volume:637;Page:7237] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I move  
That pursuant to sections 15(1)(d) and 17(2)(a) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 Anne Tolley be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission in place of Lindsay Tisch.
Clark Helen: Obituaries — Helen Duncan Professor Alan Graham MacDiarmid 
Clark Helen: Obituaries — Helen Duncan Professor Alan Graham MacDiarmid 
[Volume:637;Page:7237] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I move  
That this House note with deep regret the death on 6 February 2007 of Professor Alan Graham MacDiarmid a member of the Order of New Zealand and Nobel Prize winner in chemistry; that this House express its appreciation of the long and outstanding service given by Professor MacDiarmid to science notably to molecular electronics and conductivity and of his tremendous enthusiasm for promoting science in the community; and that it convey its deepest sympathy to his wife and family.
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Helen Duncan Professor Alan Graham MacDiarmid 
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Helen Duncan Professor Alan Graham MacDiarmid 
[Volume:637;Page:7237] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 6 February 2007 of Helen Duncan MNZM a member of this House from 1998 to 2005. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for her memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Event: Member Sworn 
Event: Member Sworn 
[Volume:637;Page:7237] 
Member Sworn 
Madam Speaker 
 administered the Oath of Allegiance to Katrina Shanks who then took her seat in the House.
Wilson Margaret: List Member Vacancy 
Wilson Margaret: List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:637;Page:7237] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Katrina May Shanks has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Donald Thomas Brash.
Wilson Margaret: Resignations — Dr Don Brash New Zealand National 
Wilson Margaret: Resignations — Dr Don Brash New Zealand National 
[Volume:637;Page:7237] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Dr Don Brash resigning his seat in the House with effect on 6 February 2007.
Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
[Volume:637;Page:7237] 
Parliamentary Service Commission 
Membership 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I move  
That pursuant to sections 15(1)(d) and 17(2)(a) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 Anne Tolley be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission in place of Lindsay Tisch. 
Motion agreed to.
Obituaries — Helen Duncan Professor Alan Graham MacDiarmid 
Obituaries — Helen Duncan Professor Alan Graham MacDiarmid 
[Volume:637;Page:7237] 
Obituaries 
Helen Duncan 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 6 February 2007 of Helen Duncan MNZM a member of this House from 1998 to 2005. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for her memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Professor Alan Graham MacDiarmid 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I move  
That this House note with deep regret the death on 6 February 2007 of Professor Alan Graham MacDiarmid a member of the Order of New Zealand and Nobel Prize winner in chemistry; that this House express its appreciation of the long and outstanding service given by Professor MacDiarmid to science notably to molecular electronics and conductivity and of his tremendous enthusiasm for promoting science in the community; and that it convey its deepest sympathy to his wife and family. 
Motion agreed to.
Member Sworn 
Member Sworn 
[Volume:637;Page:7237] 
Member Sworn 
Madam Speaker 
 administered the Oath of Allegiance to Katrina Shanks who then took her seat in the House.
List Member Vacancy 
List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:637;Page:7237] 
List Member Vacancy 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Katrina May Shanks has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Donald Thomas Brash.
Resignations — Dr Don Brash New Zealand National 
Resignations — Dr Don Brash New Zealand National 
[Volume:637;Page:7237] 
Tuesday 13 February 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Resignations 
Dr Don Brash New Zealand National 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Dr Don Brash resigning his seat in the House with effect on 6 February 2007.