edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2652] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 316 in clause 43 to omit and substitute words be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2651] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 316 in clause 43 to insert words be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2651] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 310(2) in clause 43 to insert new paragraph be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2651] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 309 in clause 43 to the definition of  
service provider 
 be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2651] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 309 in clause 43 to the definition of  
playgroup 
 be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2650] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 309 in clause 43 to the definition of  
early childhood service 
 be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2650] 
A party vote was called for on the question Th 
at the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 30 be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2650] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 26 in the name of Colin King to section 139C in clause 29 to add new subsection (3) be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2650] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment in the name of the Hon Bill English to insert new clause 6A is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 26 in the name of Colin King to section 139C(2) in clause 29 to insert words be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2649] 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 70A in clause 6(1) to insert new subsections be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2649] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 70A(2) in clause 6(1) to add words be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2649] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to section 70A(2) in clause 6(1) to omit and substitute word be agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2649] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new clause 5A be agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2648] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Bill English to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
5ANational education guidelines 
Section 60A is amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (b): 
(ba)national standards which are standards for literacy and numeracy applicable to all students in an age or year group:.
Barker Rick: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2648] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Duynhoven Harry: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2647] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
English Bill: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
English Bill: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2646] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Clearly what is in the mind of the United Future member is the consideration of the amendments relating to this issue. I take it that if the amendments are put to the Committee and are defeated then it is really in the hands of the select committee to consider what amendments it would make to the substantive bill. But there is no connection between what happens to the amendments here and what the select committee is invited to reconsider if the bill goes back to it. I would be interested in your view from the Chair on that Mr Chairperson. Could you see the point I was making? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes and I agree. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Are you able to inform us about the effects of actions we might take here? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I understand the proposition you are putting forward but it is still something that has to be dealt with by the House not by the Committee. You have flagged the issue and the proper time to deal with it would be when the House resumes. You of course can try to do that or you can leave it until the House resumes after the conclusion of the Committee stage which is the proper time to do it—in fact it is the only time to do it; the select committee cannot consider anything referred back to it by the Committee of the whole House.
Turner Judy: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2646] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just to clarify what Mr English is proposing would the vote on whether the bill was returned to the select committee happen before or after his amendment was put forward because that would make a big difference as to how we voted? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Neither. That issue must be dealt with by the House. That would be the proper time to do it—after the Committee has sent the bill back to the House.
English Bill: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
English Bill: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2645] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 The reason I am taking a call is that I think United Future has made a fair offer to deal with a couple of amendments and particularly the significant amendment regarding the introduction of national standards that has been put down in my name. From the process of getting these amendments before the Committee it is clear to me that there is significant support in the Committee for such an amendment. Some members have expressed the intention to vote for this amendment. I know that members of one party have given it quite a bit of consideration but they are still concerned that the issue has not been as widely discussed as it could have been and I think they would probably support the Education and Science Committee having a discussion about it. 
Interestingly the select committee is in the process of starting up an inquiry into achievement in literacy and numeracy—or more correctly underachievement in literacy and numeracy. The inquiry was proposed by the Maori Party and is I think supported by all parties on the select committee. 
So I would invite the House to move at the end of the Committee stage—which is I understand the right procedure—that this bill with the amendments if that is the advice the Clerk gives us goes back to the select committee to be considered. I think the House should seriously consider doing that because it is clear that a majority of members want to consider the issue. It has come through in the Committee stage that a majority of members would like the issue to be looked at again. I would be quite open as the proponent of both amendments to having an extensive discussion in the select committee. I happen to think this amendment gives the maximum flexibility to get the right answer because over time the Minister of Education—who promulgates the National Education Guidelines—would have the time to engage with all sorts of groups about what those national standards ought to be. 
Clearly there is an obstacle here in the Committee to the amendment passing now and I hope we can discuss with other parties the proposition that this issue is referred back to the select committee. The select committee does not have other legislation before it. It could probably deal with this issue fairly expeditiously and the bill could be back in the House within a matter of 3 or 4 months. I would invite the other parties if they are interested to discuss that matter with us. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising those issues Mr English.
Hughes Darren: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2645] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Turner Judy: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2645] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call to explain further why we will not be supporting Mr English’s amendments and I want to make it clear that we are not trying to use process as some sort of “out” on this matter. We are interested in hearing this issue debated but we want it done properly. We have indicated to the Maori Party members and to the National Party members that if they are prepared to move for this bill to be returned to the Education and Science Committee so that the proper process can be followed we would support their amendments on the basis that the bill would then be given the proper treatment by the select committee which it very deeply needs. 
I accept what Mr King said which was that not every amendment put forward by National is out of left field—or right field in this case—from the original bill and that his amendment is in keeping with what was discussed at the select committee. But with regard to Mr English’s amendment which I think is being touted by the National Party as one of its key amendments submitters have not been given an opportunity to address it and we believe that they should have been. We would be prepared and would be very willing to support the amendment if we are able to return this bill to the select committee. We have indicated that to the National Party and to the Maori Party and we think it is appropriate for an issue that has not been canvassed at the select committee. 
The amendment addresses quite an important issue and could have serious implications for schools teachers parents and students. The opportunity for a full select committee scrutiny needs to be offered on these sorts of issues. It is important for the public and particularly for educational specialists and leaders to make submissions on those very issues. So I want to make it very clear that we have communicated with those two parties very clearly that we would be prepared to support their amendments if they are prepared to return the bill to the select committee. I have yet to see any indication of their willingness.
Hodgson Pete: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2640] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Fairbrother Russell: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2638] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brown Peter: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2630] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt the honourable member’s speech but I seek leave of the House to table the New Zealand First policy that embraces our economic policy at the last election in order that the member might learn a little bit about what has happened. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is not really a point of order but you are entitled to seek leave anyway. Is there any objection? There is. 
Bill read a second time.
Turia Tariana: Tabling of Documents — Letter to Minister of Housing 
Turia Tariana: Tabling of Documents — Letter to Minister of Housing 
[Volume:630;Page:2613] 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the letter the HeiHei family wrote to the Minister of Housing on 16 February this year. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Urgent Debate Declined—Well Child Freephone Service 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Urgent Debate Declined—Well Child Freephone Service 
[Volume:630;Page:2613] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I note your decision in respect of the application by Judy Turner seeking to debate a matter of urgent public importance. I note that the House does control its own destiny and I seek the leave of the House to have the debate on PlunketLine that United Future has sought. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Anderton Jim: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister 4 April 
Anderton Jim: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister 4 April 
[Volume:630;Page:2613] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 In my answer to a supplementary question on 4 April I referred to the independent group of 10 scientists who had peer reviewed Biosecurity New Zealand’s risk analysis covering the importation of honey from Australia and the Pacific Islands and I stated that “all vouched for the fact that we have the most minimal amount of risk involved in it.” From the advice I had received I concluded that this was the case. However I have subsequently been advised that one of the 10 scientists disagreed with Biosecurity New Zealand’s approach for managing the identified risks. I am informed however that the other nine scientists when reviewing the parts of the document relevant to their expertise did not express disagreement with the analysis and that Biosecurity New Zealand therefore remains satisfied that the risk analysis is robust.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Well Child Freephone Service—Contract 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Well Child Freephone Service—Contract 
[Volume:630;Page:2613] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Judy Turner seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision to transfer the contract for the Well Child freephone service to McKesson New Zealand. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving administrative responsibility of the Government but I do not consider that it requires the House to set aside its pre-arranged business to debate it today. There are other parliamentary opportunities for this decision to be examined. The request is therefore declined.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2612] 
12.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What has been the total cost to date of the inquiry by Noel Ingram QC into alleged conflicts of interest involving Taito Phillip Field? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The information on costs will be released when the inquiry is complete and all costs are known. I do not consider progress reports on costs appropriate as they could be deemed to be placing pressure on the inquiry. The inquiry should take as long as necessary. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement of 14 September last year that: “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am waiting for the report to see what it advocates. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If there is no substance to the allegations against the honourable Taito Phillip Field why has a report that she herself initially estimated would take 9 working days to complete now taken over 7 months? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have consistently said the report must take as long as required to be full and frank. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Has the Prime Minister seen a draft of the report; if so was the report in the  
Trans Tasman 
 of 27 April that the honourable Taito Phillip Field was playing “hardball with the Labour Party over the examination of his dealings with the immigrant community” accurate; if not why has the release of the report taken so long? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I know of nothing to substantiate the quote the member has referred to nor have I read a draft report. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Did the honourable Taito Phillip Field’s former electorate agents Maria Coady and Siniva Papalii give evidence to the inquiry; if not why have such key people not provided evidence to it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no idea. I am waiting for the report.
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2612] 
11.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What are the next steps following the announcement of the terms of reference for the national medicines strategy? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 The aim of the national medicines strategy is to identify where improvements can be made within the existing system and the broad policy settings to ensure the best health and disability outcomes from medicines over the coming years. The Ministry of Health has begun work on a draft strategy document that will analyse the current system in New Zealand look at our current policy settings and describe international trends. It is also engaging with the sector on this work. I expect a new consultation document will be submitted to Cabinet by the end of the year. Consultation will take place early next year and I expect final advice of the outcome by the end of next year. 
Judy Turner 
: Is this strategy confined to a review of Pharmac? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am glad the member raises that question because I need to make a point very clearly that this strategy is not simply a review of Pharmac. The strategy will focus on quality access and rational use of medicines. That being said access to medicines is clearly an issue of interest to many stakeholders but this is not about the way Pharmac operates this is about the overall environment within which those decisions are made and I look forward to the public response. 
Judy Turner 
: What has been the response to the announcement so far? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: So far the response has been very positive from a variety of different groups. The non-governmental organisation Access to Medicines Coalition described this as being a significant move in the right direction. The Researched Medicines Industry Association has strongly welcomed the approach and I have had a number of responses from individuals—medical practitioners and others—all saying that this is a very timely initiative that they want to participate in.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2606] 
7.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports if any has he received on support for the Working for Families package? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have seen a number of reports that endorse the Government’s policy of targeting tax credits where they are needed—to hard-working Kiwi families with children. One example was in a speech given on Sunday which was an endorsement of “allowing for family size in the tax structure” and “easing the financial pressure on families generally.” That speech was given by Don Brash so in the words of the  
Dominion Post 
 it is “back to the drawing board” for National on tax policy. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What other reports has the Minister seen? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have seen a number of letters to the Prime Minister in response to the package. One of them states: “In our household the extra $132 that is received each week has eased the financial pressure substantially. Now I shop knowing there is room in the budget to buy a reasonable amount of groceries that will see us through the full week. The extra money means that I can put some money towards paying off old debt. It means I can enrol my son in swimming lessons and sports activities. Working for Families is for my family huge.” 
Craig Foss 
: How can the Working for Families package which sends a message to Kiwis of “This is as good as it gets and don’t even bother trying to improve yourself because the Labour Government will tax you at 90 percent.” do anything at all to lift the living standards for New Zealanders to the levels enjoyed by the thousands of New Zealanders currently living in Australia? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Well I would have thought that a package that has already benefited 194000 families in terms of family assistance 286500 recipients of accommodation supplements and 31600 recipients of childcare assistance is actually making some very substantial gains for those families. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that Australia uses a targeted tax credit mechanism which is also bled out with high effective marginal tax rates and like many countries does not have a universal tax allowance for children? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I can confirm that the system the Working for Families package is based on is very similar to that in the UK and Australia.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2604] 
5.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What recent reports if any has he received on the future of the Maori seats? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have received a report that outlines the objectives of the Maori electoral option process. Those objectives are that Maori have the opportunity to choose whether they are enrolled on the general roll or the Maori roll and that Maori are encouraged to participate in the democratic process. 
Dave Hereora 
: What other recent reports has he seen on the future of the Maori seats? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I have seen three reports. The first report notes a plan to abolish the Maori seats the second report states that the seats will be part of the political landscape for some time to come and the third principled report states that the Maori seats will be abolished—well that is unless the party in question needs the support of the Maori Party. The first report is from the leader of the National Party and the second and third reports are from his deputy. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the 1867 legislation that set up the Maori seats intended that they should last for only 5 years and can he tell us what justification there is for race-based seats in this country some 135 years after they were supposed to go out of existence? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can say to the member that it has always been the view of this party that the end of the Maori seats if it should ever come should come as a result of Maori deciding that they are no longer required. Another member of this House said that the policy has always been that the Maori seats will go when the Maori people choose for them to go—that was said by the National Party’s Tony Ryall between 1992 and 2001 on the subject of the Maori seats. I agree with him.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2602] 
3.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on the possibility of a student attending school after being charged with a serious offence? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen and heard a media statement made by Mr Bill English saying a school will be forced to take back a student who is on bail following serious charges being laid against that student. That report was completely wrong. The report and the member’s subsequent comments have put the school and its families in a very difficult position. As a result the board of trustees has had to deal with a large number of media inquiries to defend its reputation. If Mr English had taken the simple step of contacting my office he could have found out the facts for himself. 
Moana Mackey 
: What action has he and his ministry taken in these circumstances? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I was kept up to date throughout the weekend with developments. The Ministry of Education worked with the police and the school over the weekend. The ministry helped the school prepare to deal with the media attention brought about by Mr English’s comments. The ministry’s Group Special Education people assisted the school on Monday with its students and community in the aftermath of Mr English’s irresponsible comments. I issued a clarifying statement on Monday morning to clear up the misinformation from Mr English. This instance serves to remind all of us in the House how careful we must be to check our facts before commenting publicly on difficult situations and therefore making distressing situations more fraught. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: When the Minister became aware of the situation why did he not say publicly that the student who is on bail for murder would not be allowed back into a mainstream classroom? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If the member cares to check the  
Herald on Sunday 
 he will realise that my office was contacted and I commented. But of course I am limited in what I can say because unlike Mr English I did not intend to break the law. [ 
Interruption 
] Let me be clear: if I had done what that member asked for I would have broken the law in the same way that Mr English tentatively has done. 
Moana Mackey 
: What was the source of the confusion around this matter? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The confusion is a direct result of the statements made by Mr English. I heard Mr English say on National Radio firstly that the board of trustees was taking it seriously enough to have an emergency meeting; secondly that the board clearly thought it must deal with the issue; and thirdly that this board of trustees knew that it had to deal with it. When asked whether he had spoken to the board so he knew that he said: “Ah no I haven’t.” He further said that Steve Maharey should not make the college accept the student with those charges. When he was asked whether he had spoken to me about my actions he said: “Ah no I haven’t.” That is where the confusion came from.
Turner Judy: Points of Order — Question for Written Answer—Reply PlunketLine—Support 
Turner Judy: Points of Order — Question for Written Answer—Reply PlunketLine—Support 
[Volume:630;Page:2600] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move without notice a motion calling on the House to support PlunketLine. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that motion. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Williamson Maurice: Points of Order — Question for Written Answer—Reply PlunketLine—Support 
Williamson Maurice: Points of Order — Question for Written Answer—Reply PlunketLine—Support 
[Volume:630;Page:2599] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order concerning question for written answer No. 04102 2006 to the Minister of Communications. An answer to this question was due on the 28th of last month. After it had failed to meet its deadline my office emailed the Minister’s office requesting a reply. It is really a very simple question asking who the authors of a particular report are. The Minister has still failed to reply to that question for written answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I will follow that up straight after this session.
Wilson Margaret: Privilege — Television New Zealand—Former Chief Executive 
Wilson Margaret: Privilege — Television New Zealand—Former Chief Executive 
[Volume:630;Page:2599] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received the following letter from the Chairman of Television New Zealand Ltd— 
20 April 2006 
Hon Margaret Wilson 
Speaker of the House of Representatives 
Parliament Buildings 
Wellington 
Dear Madam Speaker 
In accordance with the order of the House of Representatives of 6 April 2006 I hereby advise that the Board of Television New Zealand Limited formally apologises to the House for the actions it took against Mr Ian Fraser following his appearance before the Finance & Expenditure Committee on 14 December 2005 which the Board acknowledges constituted a contempt of the House. 
Yours sincerely 
Craig Boyce 
Chairman 
I wish to also advise the House that a cheque for $1000 being the fine that the House ordered the company to pay has also been received.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — India—Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly Delegation 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — India—Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly Delegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2599] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I invite members to welcome a parliamentary delegation from the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly India led by Shri Pandey Prem Prakash Speaker of the Assembly which is present in the gallery.
Tabling of Documents — Letter to Minister of Housing 
Tabling of Documents — Letter to Minister of Housing 
[Volume:630;Page:2613] 
Tabling of Documents 
Letter to Minister of Housing 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the letter the HeiHei family wrote to the Minister of Housing on 16 February this year. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Points of Order — Urgent Debate Declined—Well Child Freephone Service 
Points of Order — Urgent Debate Declined—Well Child Freephone Service 
[Volume:630;Page:2613] 
Points of Order 
Urgent Debate Declined—Well Child Freephone Service 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I note your decision in respect of the application by Judy Turner seeking to debate a matter of urgent public importance. I note that the House does control its own destiny and I seek the leave of the House to have the debate on PlunketLine that United Future has sought. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister 4 April 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister 4 April 
[Volume:630;Page:2613] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 11 to Minister 4 April 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 In my answer to a supplementary question on 4 April I referred to the independent group of 10 scientists who had peer reviewed Biosecurity New Zealand’s risk analysis covering the importation of honey from Australia and the Pacific Islands and I stated that “all vouched for the fact that we have the most minimal amount of risk involved in it.” From the advice I had received I concluded that this was the case. However I have subsequently been advised that one of the 10 scientists disagreed with Biosecurity New Zealand’s approach for managing the identified risks. I am informed however that the other nine scientists when reviewing the parts of the document relevant to their expertise did not express disagreement with the analysis and that Biosecurity New Zealand therefore remains satisfied that the risk analysis is robust.
Urgent Debates Declined — Well Child Freephone Service—Contract 
Urgent Debates Declined — Well Child Freephone Service—Contract 
[Volume:630;Page:2613] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Well Child Freephone Service—Contract 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Judy Turner seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision to transfer the contract for the Well Child freephone service to McKesson New Zealand. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving administrative responsibility of the Government but I do not consider that it requires the House to set aside its pre-arranged business to debate it today. There are other parliamentary opportunities for this decision to be examined. The request is therefore declined.
Points of Order — Question for Written Answer—Reply PlunketLine—Support 
Points of Order — Question for Written Answer—Reply PlunketLine—Support 
[Volume:630;Page:2599] 
Points of Order 
Question for Written Answer—Reply 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order concerning question for written answer No. 04102 2006 to the Minister of Communications. An answer to this question was due on the 28th of last month. After it had failed to meet its deadline my office emailed the Minister’s office requesting a reply. It is really a very simple question asking who the authors of a particular report are. The Minister has still failed to reply to that question for written answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I will follow that up straight after this session. 
PlunketLine—Support 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move without notice a motion calling on the House to support PlunketLine. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that motion. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Privilege — Television New Zealand—Former Chief Executive 
Privilege — Television New Zealand—Former Chief Executive 
[Volume:630;Page:2599] 
Privilege 
Television New Zealand—Former Chief Executive 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received the following letter from the Chairman of Television New Zealand Ltd— 
20 April 2006 
Hon Margaret Wilson 
Speaker of the House of Representatives 
Parliament Buildings 
Wellington 
Dear Madam Speaker 
In accordance with the order of the House of Representatives of 6 April 2006 I hereby advise that the Board of Television New Zealand Limited formally apologises to the House for the actions it took against Mr Ian Fraser following his appearance before the Finance & Expenditure Committee on 14 December 2005 which the Board acknowledges constituted a contempt of the House. 
Yours sincerely 
Craig Boyce 
Chairman 
I wish to also advise the House that a cheque for $1000 being the fine that the House ordered the company to pay has also been received.
Visitors — India—Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly Delegation 
Visitors — India—Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly Delegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2599] 
Tuesday 2 May 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
India—Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly Delegation 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I invite members to welcome a parliamentary delegation from the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly India led by Shri Pandey Prem Prakash Speaker of the Assembly which is present in the gallery.
Fairbrother Russell: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13273] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Smith Nick: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13272] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the building amendment bill in my name that is before the House and also the building amendment bill that has been tabled by my colleague Bob Clarkson which sets out very clearly National’s propositions. I note that during the entire 1990s Labour did not table a single amendment bill as a member’s bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13269] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13269] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Cosgrove Clayton: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13268] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think that recent contributors are not really covering any new ground. There have been three closure motions and 18 speakers.
Moroney Sue: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Moroney Sue: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13267] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Carter Chris: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Carter Chris: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13267] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Dr Hutchison has had only one call.
Turner Judy: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13262] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call in this Committee on behalf of United Future. The thing that struck me about this bill when it first came to the House was that it was progress on the Building Act that had been well consulted on by the department. A lot of work had been done bringing the department to a place on a number of issues whereby it was able to move ahead and put forward an amendment to the Building Act to tidy up areas that needed tidying up. 
It became apparent during the select committee process that a number of submitters had taken the time to highlight other issues and ongoing work that needed to be signalled and worked on for future amendments. The Building Act is the kind of Act that will more than likely be back regularly before the House for amendment in order to reflect the changing nature of the building industry because of developments in building in building materials and in building design. This bill never pretended to cover every change that is necessary to improve the Building Act but it is certainly a step forward. Those of us in the Chamber who are choosing to support the bill are doing so because it has been well-considered. Yes some submitters chose to highlight issues for further consideration—issues that fell outside the immediate scope of this bill—and they were right to do so and those issues have been noted. 
One issue that struck me was that of the PIM report and the fact that this bill includes in the list of things to signal early to people who are building the need for disability accessibility particularly to public buildings. Some of the city councils that submitted referred to the fact that the information in a PIM report is often not asked for—it is not sought—and therefore can be slightly irrelevant to building projects. Often by the time a PIM report is received plans have already been drawn up and the project is a huge way down the track. It is an issue for the future and we may need to work out a way in which the information contained for instance in PIM reports can be accessed by designers and builders earlier in the process so that the recommendations and requirements such reports contain are considered at the earliest possible stage. That is the kind of issue that was brought up for future consideration. 
United Future is very happy to give its ongoing support to this bill because certainly many of the submitters also referred to the many good things in it. Although they signalled the need for future changes they were also very supportive of the bill’s provisions.
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13253] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Bill read a third time.