edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brown Peter: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8503] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill is a very important bill. We live in a volatile world and that makes this bill triply important. New Zealand First will be supporting the bill. As has already been noted the need for the amendment arose from a review of the Terrorism Suppression Act by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in 2005. In that review a number of issues around the workings of the Act were identified and issues around whether it met with New Zealand’s international obligations were also raised. 
The bill contains several of the legislative responses recommended by the select committee and further amendments to bring the Act up to date with international developments—such as for offences relating to terrorist attacks using nuclear material. The bill separates out the process for designating terrorists under two separate UN Security Council resolutions. It amends the procedure for extending designations when they expire and it seeks to repeal the avoidance of doubt provisions. 
The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 was enacted as a consequence of the 11 September terrorist attacks. Things have moved on from that time—indeed in many ways they have got so much worse—and so must our response move on. The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill will ensure that terrorist entities that appear on the UN’s Resolution 1267 list are automatically designated under the Act whilst also allowing the Prime Minister’s discretionary designation process to continue. 
The bill will also amend the Terrorism Suppression Act so that terrorist entities designated by the Security Council under its Resolution 1267 will remain designated in New Zealand for as long as they remain on the Security Council’s list without needing to reviewed by the High Court. On the other hand the bill also provides that designations made by the Prime Minister pursuant to UN Resolution 1373 will continue to expire after 3 years unless extended. The bill replaces the role of the High Court with the Prime Minister when renewing designations. Any decisions by the Prime Minister to designate an entity or a decision not to revoke a designation could be subject to judicial review. This will make the Terrorism Suppression Act consistent with anti-terrorism legislation in other comparable countries. 
In summary although these changes to the Act can be explained as technical changes they are necessary both to bring New Zealand into line with international obligations and to ensure we are operating in an up-to-date and workable environment. New Zealand First supports this bill going to select committee.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8486] 
7.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What recent announcements has she made concerning changes to how employees and employers can work out leave and pay entitlements? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to inform the House that my colleague Lianne Dalziel and I have recently launched a new online tool to help both employers and employees calculate their improved leave entitlement under the Holidays Act. It provides a simple one-stop shop to determine whether an employee is entitled to a paid public holiday and if so what that entitlement should be. 
Dave Hereora 
: What does the Minister expect that this tool will achieve? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The tool’s design recognises that not every worker has straightforward working arrangements and it will make determining his or her pay and leave entitlements simple and straightforward. It will meet a core and significant aspect of one of the recommendations of the Small Business Advisory Group as it will reduce business compliance costs—a reduction that I am sure will be welcomed by all but in particular by small-business owners. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Does the Minister think it is fair that a worker is paid more to be sick than to be at work; how does that encourage productivity or is a calculator needed to decide what is fair? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Perhaps I could recommend to the member that she actually use the online tool to determine the facts of the entitlement rather than rely on her predecessor to continue reporting misinformation.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8479] 
2.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing in schools to promote healthy active children and reduce obesity? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 On the subject of healthy confident kids which we have just been discussing I am pleased to say that today the Government along with Sue Kedgley from the Green Party has launched the Food and Nutrition for Healthy Confident Kids guidelines for schools. The guidelines are in my hands and will be available to all members of the House who may want to use them personally or who would like to make sure they are available in their local schools. This is part of the $67 million Mission-On campaign that will run over a number of years. In practice these guidelines will influence what is eaten in the tuck shops in our schools and what children will bring to school and it will impact on what they learn through the curriculum because a number of learning units can be taken from these guidelines to be used in the curriculum as well. So the campaign will have a substantial impact on what happens in our schools. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What else is the Government doing to encourage young New Zealanders to live healthy and confident lives? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The $67 million campaign I mentioned earlier covers not only nutrition but physical activity amongst younger New Zealanders. The programme for example will involve making use of high-profile New Zealanders who will be setting an example to young New Zealanders; youth-focused websites; encouraging the advertising industry to decrease children’s exposure to unhealthy foods; the sponsorship of television and radio programmes that contain healthy choices within them; a television and computer free - time campaign; and an expansion of Green Prescription programmes such as the ones that encourage young people to get out and exercise rather than rely on other forms of prescription—say medication—to resolve an issue. It is a very good campaign. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that a $12 million Nutrition Fund secured by the Green Party in last year’s Budget will help to implement the new nutrition guidelines; and does he hope that children’s ability to learn and concentrate in the classroom will improve as all schools move towards ensuring that only healthy food is sold? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I can confirm that. The $12 million Nutrition Fund runs over 4 years and is now available to schools. That funding was secured by the Green Party as part of its post-election agreement with the Government. As a first step the Nutrition Fund will provide for two people from every school to be able to attend a workshop so that they can learn more about how to incorporate all of this into the school curriculum and the life of the school. From July funding will be available to early childhood education services and schools to establish their own ideas or programmes to support sustainable healthy eating environments.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8475] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 To repeat myself no decision has been made on that matter.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8475] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Can we assume from the fact that the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill does not appear under Government orders of the day that the Government on instruction from the Rt Hon Winston Peters has decided not to pursue that particular line and that the bill will remain a member’s bill?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8475] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill the Criminal Procedure Bill and the first reading of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:638;Page:8475] 
Thursday 29 March 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 remaining stages of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill the Criminal Procedure Bill and the first reading of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Can we assume from the fact that the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill does not appear under Government orders of the day that the Government on instruction from the Rt Hon Winston Peters has decided not to pursue that particular line and that the bill will remain a member’s bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 To repeat myself no decision has been made on that matter.
Guy Nathan: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2172] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I would like everyone in the Committee to picture this: there has been an unfortunate situation and someone has ended up in court but the person is deaf and is relying on a translator. I think it is important under clause 4 of Part 2 that we really have a close look at that situation. If I were in court and if I were deaf I would want to ensure that I had the best translator—the most competent one I could find. When I look through some of the submissions I find them very interesting. I see one there from Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori down in Wellington which states that its concern is the recognition that when people use New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings they should be able to express themselves in Maori or English as they choose. 
I would be really interested in the Minister taking a call to let me know how many Maori translators there are in this country. It would be really interesting to know. I think there is a real issue around whether we have enough signers and whether they are all at a good level of competency and up to a high level of translation. I think it is also interesting to note that there is a diploma course available in Auckland. I just wonder how many people are going through and taking up that diploma and whether we have enough signers in New Zealand who can translate in Maori and English. 
I move to clause 10A which is all about the review in 3 years’ time. That review will be quite interesting I believe because potentially it will throw up the true costs and indicate any amendments that may have to be made. It is really important that when that review is done in 3 years’ time—or thereabouts whenever practically possible—the Deaf community are consulted. That is very very important. When I looked through some of the submissions I found quite an interesting comment from Freyberg High School in Palmerston North which is near my area. It states: “Many deaf people get upset with so many people patronising them. We can’t stand this. We think we are equal to others and we are. We are equal with hearing people and with education too. Deaf people can do everything except hear. We have intelligence knowledge and good learning. This is where the New Zealand Sign Language Bill our visual language actually helps. We receive this through our eyes not our ears.” 
The bill is supported by the National caucus. Through reading the submissions reading the bill today and going through the bill part by part I have learnt an extremely large amount about the bill. I support it wholeheartedly.
Stewart Barbara: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2168] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I am delighted to take a call on Part 2 of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. New Zealand First supports Part 2. This bill to us is basically about communication and accessing information which we believe all people have a right to do. Part 2 outlines the circumstances where New Zealand Sign Language can be used. It emphasises the fact that a competent interpreter must be available. We believe this will be challenging because the bill does not determine competency and we believe competency must be determined. In this House we are very aware that this is a very significant issue for the Deaf community. 
We in New Zealand First believe competency should ensure that certification by successfully graduating from a course is a basic requirement of competency. We must ensure that information is relayed correctly. We all know that a lack of competency in this particular area could have significant consequences for a deaf person particularly in a health or a legal environment. This is a very significant and important issue. We believe that minimum standards of competency must be set as a priority. 
There must also be a focus on ensuring sufficient numbers of interpreters are available to provide the service. This means that there must be some incentive for providers to offer this training throughout New Zealand. We know that the Auckland University of Technology offers this training and I was very pleased to read on the Internet that a second course has been set up in Otago. I am very mindful that the courses are of 2 years’ duration so it may be some time before we see those students graduate. We know that there is currently a shortage of New Zealand Sign Language interpreters so it will be quite some time before graduates of those courses can actually meet the demand for interpreters. 
We must acknowledge the interpreter in the House today who is using sign language. It does require a lot of skill. We must emphasise that this is important legislation which will ensure that New Zealand Sign Language has equal status to spoken language. As other speakers have said this is a vital communication issue and we look forward to the speedy passing of this bill through the House.
Barnett Tim: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2165] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think members will have much more scope under Part 2. The debate is tending to get a bit repetitive. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Beyer Georgina: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2164] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2160] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Stewart Barbara: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2161] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is very pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. Clause 3 outlines the purpose of the bill. It is very clear. The key message is that sign language can be used in legal proceedings and the bill also promotes the use of sign language in Government departments. I was very pleased to see that the Wellington City Council offers a sign language interpreting service. 
New Zealand First believes it is important to acknowledge the rights of members of the Deaf community and their equal value in society. The more options deaf New Zealanders have to participate in the community and in society overall the richer their lives will be. In this area they have not been afforded the same right to their language as other New Zealanders. 
I note the previous speaker said that sign languages are not universal. Guess what? English is not totally a universal language. New Zealand Sign Language is unique to New Zealand; it is not used anywhere else in the world. Other countries have their own sign language. This is just like Maori which is not a universal language but we need to take note of that language and include it as an official language as well. Sign language includes signs that express Maori language and Maori culture. In this way it is very inclusive and assures that Maori New Zealanders who do not hear have access to their language and their culture and that is what needs to happen. 
New Zealand First was very pleased to see in clause 4 that the interpretation of terms includes people who identify with the Deaf community as the bill must include hearing people within the definition. New Zealand First believes that today is an opportunity to make progress on the legal status of the New Zealand Sign Language and to advance the recognition of sign language.
Connell Brian: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2160] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like you to reflect on the process here. The vote was called for but the member was silent when asked to cast the vote for United Future. I am not sure he can now seek to change that and cast the vote now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. Although the member makes a good point the fact remains that the vote has not been declared. So it is in order for the member to do what he did. [ 
Interruption 
] I remind members that there is to be no comment at all during the taking of votes.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2158] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I wish to provide a personal explanation to clarify a matter that was raised by the previous speaker Mr Hayes. In my speech I advised that the Maori Party has taken particular note of advice and analyses provided by Professor Jane Kelsey. I also said that Jane Kelsey was one of the submitters to the committee. An accusation was made that the Maori Party was using Professor Kelsey as a speech writer. I want to explain to the House that Professor Kelsey has never provided any speech either to me or to the Maori Party under those conditions.
Robertson H V Ross: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2151] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker I remind members in the House to look at Speaker’s ruling 16/2: “Cellphones should be switched off within the hearing of the debating chamber.” They are not allowed to be on. It is disrespectful to other speakers.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2144] 
9.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: What is the expected impact on small to medium enterprises of legislative and regulatory changes coming into effect on 1 April? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 On 1 April small to medium sized enterprises will experience a number of benefits related to changes to the fringe benefit tax a new accident compensation levy discount programme will be introduced and changes to tax on offshore income will encourage new migrants and New Zealanders to return home which in turn will increase access to skilled employees. These changes should reinforce the World Bank’s view that New Zealand is the easiest place in the world in which to do business. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister give us an example of how a small business will benefit from these changes? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The cost of fringe benefit tax on motor vehicles will fall from 24 percent to 20 percent of the vehicle’s cost so if a company pays fringe benefit tax on a $40000 car the saving will be over $1000. In addition cellphones or laptops costing less than $5000 that are used primarily for the business will be exempt from fringe benefit tax from 1 April this year. 
Paula Bennett 
: Why does the Minister not take on board the fact that the most important change the Small Business Advisory Group wanted was probationary periods for new employees—or does she think she can fob it off with yet another round of trivial amendments? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I will enjoy telling the Small Business Advisory Group that these amendments were regarded as being trivial by the National Party. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree that the amendment introduced by United Future’s Minister of Revenue to give the Inland Revenue Department the power to waive penalties in dealing with cases where taxpayers have taken an unacceptable tax position through genuine error will make it easier for small businesses to make a GST and a tax return? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Absolutely and I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Revenue the Hon Peter Dunne on that measure as I have often been approached by constituents about genuine errors in those areas. I am sure it will be welcomed by the Small Business Advisory Group as well given that this is part of its No. 2 recommendation in its latest report. 
Hone Harawira 
: Is the Minister aware of comments made by Alan Groves a former investment manager for Maori innovation at the Foundation for Research Science and Technology that young Maori are being encouraged away from small business and how will she address that type of attitude? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I am not aware of those comments but I know that the Associate Minister for Economic Development the Hon Dover Samuels is particularly interested in that matter.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2141] 
7.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her reply to question for written answer No. 414 (2006) “On 9 December 2005 a VIP car transporting me was hit from behind in Ponsonby Road.” when asked “Has the Prime Minister’s motorcade been involved in any accidents in the past 12 months; if so on what dates where and what are the details?” and how many cars were involved in the accident? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes. The information I have suggests three cars were involved: the one that stopped suddenly the car the Prime Minister was in and the car behind her which ran into the car the Prime Minister was in. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister remember her campaign promise given in Taranaki – King Country: “We will restore public accountability openness and honesty.”; and does she believe her reply to that question met the standard that she promised to the people of New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did the Prime Minister believe that she could get away with telling Parliament and the people of New Zealand that her car was hit from behind and failing to say that the car that hit her from behind was part of her own motorcade the VIP police escort and that in fact her car was shunted into the car in front; if not why did she not actually provide the detail of the accident? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The VIP car the Prime Minister was in was hit from behind. The information about that car is now still in the public arena but it is not the normal practice to identify Diplomatic Protection Squad cars which of course was the designation of the car following her. It is somewhat exaggerated I think to describe two cars as a motorcade. 
Rodney Hide 
: Was the Prime Minister a little sensitive about her motorcade given that it could not negotiate Ponsonby Road without incurring an accident and that the Prime Minister had just been telling the people of New Zealand that she was quite safe and so were the public of New Zealand when she was travelling at 170 kilometres per hour through the South Island? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The indications I have are that the car in front of the VIP car stopped suddenly. Why that happened I do not know. The VIP car stopped suddenly. As the member may or may not be aware a Diplomatic Protection Squad car follows very closely upon a VIP car. The Diplomatic Protection Squad car was unable to stop in time and so rear-ended the Prime Minister’s car. There was no front-end damage to the Prime Minister’s car and the occupants of the car in front of the Prime Minister’s car were checked for injury. There were no injuries reported. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You asked Mr Hide to leave the Chamber before— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I am sure he is just about to leave us. 
Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.
Hartley Ann: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hartley Ann: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2137] 
5.  
ANN HARTLEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: What reports has she received regarding developments in the State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I have received a report from the State Services Commission that describes the success of the scheme. At 31 December 2005 30990 State servants were members of the scheme—that is 16.8 percent more than a year before. Eighty-one percent of all members of the scheme contribute at least 3 percent of their salary to their retirement saving every pay day. That is outstanding. In only 18 months the scheme has shown that New Zealanders are prepared to save for their retirement. 
Ann Hartley 
: Why did the Government establish the State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Government introduced the scheme in 2004 out of work in its Partnership for Quality agreement. We introduced the scheme because we are committed to a strong public service and because we believe New Zealanders need to save more. It is important that the Government as a major employer shows leadership in encouraging workplace saving and this scheme will ensure the living standards of many New Zealanders in their retirement years as will the Superannuation Fund and KiwiSaver. 
Ann Hartley 
: What reports has she seen about increasing saving for retirement? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen two reports. One report stated tax breaks would increase people’s incentive to save. The other report stated tax deductions do not work. The first report was from John Key and the second was from Don Brash. I think it would help the debate on superannuation in this country if they could make up their minds what position they are going to take before they actually enter the debate because this Government is committed to ensuring that New Zealanders save more.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2131] 
1. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What steps has the Government taken to improve the rates rebate scheme for those on low incomes? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 From 1 July I am pleased to tell the House there will be a significant increase in the number of Kiwis who will be eligible for a rebate under the rates rebate scheme. That is because the income threshold under which people will become eligible for a full rebate will increase from $7400 to $20000. In addition the maximum rebate under the scheme will increase from $200 to $500 meaning there will be more money in the pockets of those who receive a rebate. 
Steve Chadwick 
: How many more people will be eligible to receive the rates rebate as a result of the rates rebate scheme changes that come into effect on 1 July? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The changes will mean many more New Zealanders particularly older people and others on lower fixed incomes will be eligible for a rates rebate. Whereas in the 2004-05 rating year fewer than 4000 people actually received a rebate now up to 300000 New Zealanders will be eligible for a rates rebate under the new scheme.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Written Questions—Requirements 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Written Questions—Requirements 
[Volume:630;Page:2130] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide I have ruled on that matter. If it is a new point of order—and I mean a new point— 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Sure. It is actually to you Madam Speaker that we look to uphold the rules of this Parliament. Before I raise my new point of order I will respond to Dr Cullen’s point. The fact that I have an oral question down to the Prime Minister in no way addresses the issue for this House that I was raising with you Madam Speaker which is about the Standing Orders. My point of order was entirely in order. I pointed to the Speaker’s ruling and I raised it. 
I want now to raise with you an issue under Standing Order 373/4. It beggars belief how many times I have raised issues with Ministers with the Prime Minister and indeed with the Speaker. But the requirement in that Standing Order is that replies be given in 6 working days. The question I put to the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister for goodness’ sake—was on the first day back in this House on 14 February. The reply to that question was due on 22 February. I received the answer on 21 March—fully 4 weeks late. I ask you Madam Speaker through your office to send a message to the Prime Minister and other Ministers that Standing Orders do apply to them and that answering questions informatively is important but more particularly so is complying with the Standing Orders. How can it be that the Prime Minister takes 5 weeks to answer a question that should be answered in 6 days? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I will look into it.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Written Questions—Requirements 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Written Questions—Requirements 
[Volume:630;Page:2130] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is a new point of order I hope. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is but it is along the same lines and it is something we were going to bring up with you at some point Madam Speaker. It is appropriate to do so now. National has been concerned for a time about the way in which some written questions are answered and I can think of one Minister whom I will not name who has actually just written back and said: “It would take too long to answer this so we’re not going to.” I wonder Madam Speaker whether you might reflect on how many times you in your relatively short time as Speaker have dealt with issues in the House in relation to questions for written answer. It seems to me that it would be quite frequently. Perhaps therefore there is a need to remind Government Ministers of their obligations in that regard. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind the member that as I ruled before if members have raised the matter first with the Minister’s office and second with the Speaker then the Speaker will deal with it.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Written Questions—Requirements 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Written Questions—Requirements 
[Volume:630;Page:2129] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I consider it to be a serious point of order. I refer the House to Speaker’s ruling 154/1 which is a recent ruling from Speaker Hunt: “Ministers have a responsibility to the House and through the House to the country to account for the public offices they hold. Question time is an important element of this accountability. Ministers should therefore take questions seriously and endeavour to give informative replies to the questions that they are asked.” That is the entire ruling. I want to concentrate on the fact that Ministers should endeavour to give “informative replies to the questions that they are asked.” The Speaker’s ruling of course covers written questions and that is where my difficulty lies with the Government. 
I put a question to the Prime Minister that asked her the details of any road accidents that she had been involved in with her motorcade. I received her answer and the total answer is this: “On 9 December 2005 a VIP car transporting me was hit from behind in Ponsonby Road.” 
Hon Annette King 
: He asked the question. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The Minister of Police likes to chip in but I ask her to just let me— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please come to the point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is a bit hard to concentrate when people from the cross benches are chipping in. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree I say to the member that he is entitled to put forward his point of order but also that the Standing Orders ask that points of order be put concisely and tersely. So I ask the member to do that please. I ask other members to please be quiet while he is doing so. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The written reply by the Prime Minister stated: “On 9 December 2005 a VIP car transporting me was hit from behind in Ponsonby Road.” That was the total reply but my question asked what the details were. In actual fact what transpired was that the car the Prime Minister was in was hit by her police escort from behind—it was not just any old car that hit her. She failed to report that in her answer to the question. The second thing is that she failed to mention a detail that is quite important which is that her car was catapulted as a result of the rear end impact into another car. It was a three car pile-up that was caused by her own motorcade. 
My issue is that when I go to Speaker’s ruling 154/1 there is no way that it can be construed that the Prime Minister has endeavoured to give an informative reply to the question that was asked. I ask you Madam Speaker to help this House to uphold that Speaker’s ruling.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Written Questions—Requirements 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Written Questions—Requirements 
[Volume:630;Page:2130] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That was about as gross a misuse of the Standing Order procedure as I have seen in many a long time. First of all the supposed facts mentioned by the member are debatable but more important the member has question of the day No. 7 which raises precisely this matter. Then to pretend with an innocent look on his face while glancing by sheer chance at the TV cameras the entire time that he is raising a serious point of order around the original written answer is to beggar belief in terms of the members of this House. 
Rodney Hide 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. The member had a considerable amount of time in which to make his point of order. There has been a response to it. I would refer the member though to Speaker’s ruling 159/5(2). If a member is dissatisfied with a written reply then that member should raise that initially with the Minister’s office. Once that has happened then the Speaker will intervene but not until it has been raised.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2129] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and the first readings of the Meat Board Amendment Bill and the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2129] 
Thursday 23 March 2006 
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 remaining stages of the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and the first readings of the Meat Board Amendment Bill and the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Finlayson Christopher: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4684] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 There were two issues at stake tonight and the Minister was the only person from Labour who responded to them which is proof if proof be needed that the gene pool in Labour has seriously deteriorated. This would never have happened under Geoffrey Palmer. Instead we have a Minister of Justice who grew organic vegetables and on the basis of his answers to questions today some would say he has become one. We have an Attorney-General who is a history teacher. The Minister in the chair Rick Barker is a trade unionist and the Associate Minister is a clerk. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It is clearly inappropriate for the Minister of Justice to stand in the middle of the Chamber and converse with members during Mr Finlayson’s speech. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Of course it would be a matter of decorum. I would not want to offend the dignity of the Chamber. I happened to be conversing with a member when Mr Finlayson got up and attempted humour but I do apologise for any offence. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4682] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: An amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson to Part 4 is ruled out of order under Standing Order 322. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: An amendment in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 3 of schedule 3 is ruled out of order under Standing Order 322. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4682] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 4 agreed to. 
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4681] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Barker Rick: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4678] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I am confronted now with two arguments. One is from Mr Finlayson who says that my mind is closed and that I have cavalierly brushed aside members’ arguments on the Coroners Bill without due regard and the other is from Richard Worth who with his eloquent and persuasive tones cunningly tries to inveigle me into a position of compromise and negotiation who says that all is possible and who puts before us a choice. 
I want to make some observations. Firstly I am really impressed at the industrial astuteness of National members in becoming self-appointed job delegates for coroners. I think that is really good. Secondly if Parliament sets up a particular process as it is entitled to do then of course at some stage if it wishes it is entitled to put that process aside. In fact that is partly what it is doing. Parliament is modifying and changing a process as is its right. Otherwise it surrenders its sovereignty—and Mr Worth would never agree to Parliament surrendering its sovereignty I am sure. 
I draw Mr Worth’s attention to the wording of the bill—let us read it. As a shrewd and cunning lawyer I think he is capable of reading it. The provision states: “No former coroner is entitled to compensation for loss of office as a coroner …”. They are not entitled as a right. The words do not state: “No coroner shall ever be paid compensation.” 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Aha! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Mr Auchinvole is obviously much further ahead than the two lawyers; he has cottoned on to it immediately. The provision does not preclude the possibility absolutely; it leaves the matter open. It states that a coroner is not entitled to an absolute right and I want Dr Worth to reflect on those words and try to figure out whether he can draw a straight line between the dots.
Hartley Ann: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4675] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The debate on this part includes schedules 1 to 5.
Vote: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4674] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to clause 71 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4674] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Gallagher Martin: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4672] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tisch Lindsay: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4656] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The Protected Objects Amendment Bill is very important legislation. I was on the Government Administration Committee that looked at the very important issue of protected objects. National has supported this legislation right through. We had a number of very good submissions to the select committee. At the first reading I talked about the various conventions and their importance and of how New Zealand needs to be part of those conventions in order to protect our heritage and our culture. All through the readings and in the Committee stage National has had a very good team that has crystallised and articulated the arguments about the necessity and importance of maintaining restoring and protecting for future generations those things that we believe are so important. 
It is very easy to be able to sell off objects. We saw recently in Australia how bidders for a Victoria Cross had to pull out of the bidding because the law required the Victoria Cross to stay in Australia. That may well have affected the price that the Victoria Cross went for but at the end of the day something so important to Australia was protected. Those are the sorts of provisions that are so important for us here—provisions that will protect our objects our heritage and our culture not only for ourselves now but for future generations. National has great pleasure in supporting the third reading of this bill. 
Bill read a third time. 
Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Donnelly Brian: Speaker’s Rulings — Mispronunciation—Maori Language and Members’ Names 
Donnelly Brian: Speaker’s Rulings — Mispronunciation—Maori Language and Members’ Names 
[Volume:633;Page:4654] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a point of clarification. That was a very wise decision and I thank you very much for bringing it to our attention. But I hope it was not as a result of any perceived mispronunciation on my part. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No absolutely not. This was just an opportunity to bring the matter up and certainly the ruling needed to be reported back to the House.
Speaker’s Rulings — Mispronunciation—Maori Language and Members’ Names 
Speaker’s Rulings — Mispronunciation—Maori Language and Members’ Names 
[Volume:633;Page:4654] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Mispronunciation—Maori Language and Members’ Names 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Just before I call the next member I want to bring to members’ attention a ruling that was asked for last week—the member was also involved in that matter. Last week there was a discussion about pronunciation and we said we would discuss it as presiding officers and come back with a ruling which we have done. I will read the ruling to members: “To pronounce a word differently from the way in which another member pronounces that word is not a matter of order. There are many different ways to pronounce English words and I presume that this is true of Maori words too. No member in this House has the monopoly of directing how a word is to be pronounced. But if a member deliberately mispronounces a word—particularly another member’s name—so as to create disorder then that is out of order and the Speaker on the Speaker’s own initiative or on the matter being raised as a point of order will intervene.” 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a point of clarification. That was a very wise decision and I thank you very much for bringing it to our attention. But I hope it was not as a result of any perceived mispronunciation on my part. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No absolutely not. This was just an opportunity to bring the matter up and certainly the ruling needed to be reported back to the House.