edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Copeland Gordon:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Copeland Gordon:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:639;Page:9815] 
8.  
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Why has he now abandoned his Budget 2005 commitment to a small adjustment to the current tax thresholds from $38000 to $40324 and from $60000 to $63672 to offset at least to some extent inflation for the 3-year period between 2005 and 2008? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] Those members opposite just cannot wait for their extra $5 a week! Because that would have injected a further $400 million into the economy in 2008-09 and that would not have been responsible in the current macroeconomic environment. It was more responsible to enhance KiwiSaver. That is why I was pleased that at a pre-Budget meeting the member accepted that trade-off—however reluctantly. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister realise that a person on the then average wage of $36000 in 2002 now needs to earn about $44000 to cover the increases in the cost of living and that as a result of moving from the 19.5c to the 33c tax bracket that person is now almost $2000 per annum worse off after tax; if so does he intend to fix that while he still has the opportunity to do so? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Real after-tax incomes have increased over the last 7½ years. Real household after-tax incomes have increased significantly over the last 7½ years. The member may have noticed that the Reserve Bank recently put up the interest rate. Had I injected another $400 million a year into demand it is likely that those increases would have been higher thus reducing people’s real incomes. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Does he stand by his statement: “There will be a time for personal tax cuts as fiscal and economic pressures ease.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I indicated before the Budget I hope to be in a position to announce the timing and shape of personal tax changes over the long term in my next Budget. I note that Mr English has said that now is not the time for extensive tax cuts thus agreeing with me. He has quantified the maximum amount available as $500 million a year which would give most taxpayers no more than about $1 a week and $5 a week if spread equally across the entire range of taxpayers. That is what $500 million a year is I say to Mr English. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister agree that our current high dollar and interest rate led to the intervention by the Reserve Bank on Monday; if so does he believe that increases in tax thresholds at this time would only add to inflationary pressure? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As the governor said quite clearly the major factor in the rise was the proposed Fonterra payout injecting some $2 billion extra into the economy. [ 
Interruption 
] Well that is what the Governor of the Reserve Bank actually said. If the member wants to show the same contempt for the governor as he shows for the legal system that is fine by me.
Moroney Sue:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Moroney Sue:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:639;Page:9812] 
6.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps are under way to provide New Zealand families with 20 hours of free early childhood education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Coincidentally I happen to have a similar answer to that to the previous question. In April early childhood services began ordering forms for parents to claim their free hours and are now starting to have meetings with parents and to talk about the policy. The initial applications from services to take up free early childhood education are now making their way through the Ministry of Education and the signs are looking good. This will result in tens of thousands of New Zealand families receiving 20 hours’ free early childhood education from 1 July and as the policy rolls out over the next year I am confident that even more services will offer that policy to parents. 
Sue Moroney 
: What feedback has the Minister been getting about the free early childhood education policy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The New Zealand Childcare Association says it is “an important step in the direction of publicly funded ECE and creates a level playing field where parents can choose the service they want regardless of cost”. The Waikato Kindergarten Association calls it a wonderful initiative. The Lower Hutt Kindergarten Association says it is a fantastic opportunity to reduce costs to families. I was pleased to see yesterday that the Auckland Kindergarten Association with over 5500 children is taking up free early childhood education. The Ministry of Education reports positive feedback from the 165 face-to-face meetings with services around the country and I do want to repeat that I am delighted with the progress that Paula Bennett is making in promoting this policy. As I said before after her visit to Whakatane the numbers went up. 
Katherine Rich 
: What sort of death wish does the Minister have in arranging a patsy question to himself on the subject of 20 free hours when the decision of the Auckland Kindergarten Association to implement his policy is the most reluctant so far with its press release today using phrases like “reluctantly agreed” “still real concerns” “continual review” and “If the financial position of the AKA is threatened we will seriously consider withdrawing from this policy.”—it is hardly a ringing endorsement? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I just want to say to the member that I know this hurts but the association is in.
Mackey Moana:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mackey Moana:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:639;Page:9810] 
4.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What reports if any has he received on support for the interest-free student loan scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I received a report that states: “There are half a million New Zealanders who’ve now got used to not paying interest and we have to listen to that pretty carefully.” and: “… you’ve got half a million New Zealanders now with zero percent loans and that’s a pretty hard thing to turn around and say it’s over.” That is Mr Key’s answer to the question: “If elected Government would National keep the student loan interest write-off scheme?”. It sounds like a tentative “Yes”. 
Moana Mackey 
: What reports has he received indicating concerns about the student loan scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have received a number of written questions expressing concerns that “… interest free student loans are directing saving resources away from other priorities … while at the same time creating no obvious educational benefits.” and “What is fair about taxing people without tertiary education in order to pay for an interest free student loan scheme?”. Those questions came from the Opposition spokesperson on tertiary education Dr Paul Hutchison. Those statements sound like a definite “No” to the question that Mr Key was asked. 
Moana Mackey 
: What are the benefits of the interest-free student loan policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The student loan interest-free policy “cuts the cost to students of tertiary study and encourages skilled New Zealanders to stay in New Zealand.” It should be noted that Mr Key campaigned against it and voted against it. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister consider it reasonable that the number of students who must borrow living costs is almost the same as the number of students eligible for the student allowance; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Ever since the modern form of student allowances was introduced—many years ago now—the allowances have been income-tested on parental income. Even now despite the large number of people who go into tertiary education there is still some bias towards people from higher-income groups compared with those from lower-income groups. I would not consider it unreasonable that those on higher incomes made some contribution to the cost of their young person’s education.
Mark Ron:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mark Ron:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:639;Page:9809] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table documentation that New Zealand First was able to glean from the Minister of Justice and the Companies Register in 10 minutes—information that the Ministry of Defence could not seem to find out in about 3 months. 
Document not tabled.
Mark Ron:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mark Ron:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:639;Page:9809] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an article from the  
Dominion Post  
dated 22 June 2006 that clearly identifies Specialised Guard Services and its failures at the Wellington Central Police Station. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Dominion Post
Mark Ron:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mark Ron:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:639;Page:9809] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a list from the Ministry of Justice website that shows that the successful tenderer employed only 26 registered security guards. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Justice
Mark Ron:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mark Ron:  Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:639;Page:9809] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I apologise; I should have done this at the end of my question question No. 2. I seek leave to table the New Zealand Defence Force tender application documents which require tenderers to describe their experience in providing appropriate personnel. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Defence Force
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10102] 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Who were the “powerful interests” who attempted to stop the Securities Commission insider trading case involving David Richwhite and Sir Michael Fay she reportedly referred to in her speech to the House on 19 June 2007? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Commerce 
: What the Minister actually said was: “There were interests out there who did not want the defendants pursued.” The Minister was referring to those who attacked the Securities Commission for taking and continuing to pursue the case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware of people involved in this case threatening those on the Securities Commission and those assisting the Securities Commission in respect of their future contracts and employment; if so who would those parties be? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have information in relation to that in front of me. I think that would be a very serious matter indeed which would be worthy of further investigation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister of Commerce having seen that her officials in their first proper investigation of these two gentlemen achieved a strike rate of one out of one had any reports prepared for the head of the Serious Fraud Office and the head of the Inland Revenue Department as to what their proper action should have been which they did not take and therefore enable themselves to be accused of being grossly negligent of their duty? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I have no such information in front of me. I am not aware that any such reports were prepared. The Serious Fraud Office has close to a 90 percent success rate in its prosecutions.
Paraone Pita: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10147] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to acknowledge at this time all those people who are on the motorway listening to this debate particularly in terms of some of the comments that have been made about the intent of this Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. Although there have been those who have expressed some disquiet about this bill we know that they will support it. 
This bill is timely. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the Minister responsible for this bill Clayton Cosgrove for reacting in a timely manner because there are a number of families whose homes are affected by the weathertight homes issue. It is only fair that this Government should introduce a bill to provide a remedy for the problems that those families have. I know that in Manukau City where I live there are a number of families who are concerned about whether they will get some form of compensation be it for the distress and anxiety caused by the problem their home has or for other reasons. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10142] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10129] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Sharples Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sharples Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10111] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave to table this code of conduct—the one for MPs. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the code of conduct. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10111] 
12.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Rural Affairs 
: Has he received any reports on improving recruitment and retention of medical staff in rural areas? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 Yes. The Government has announced that from next February the number of fully funded places for general practice training will rise from 69 a year to 104. Also from February 2008 up to 20 fifth-year medical students from Auckland University will have the opportunity to spend a year working and studying at Whangarei Hospital and smaller hospitals in Northland. Thirdly the University of Otago has been given $300000 to develop a curriculum for a rural medical immersion programme at two rural district health boards. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other reports has he received on initiatives for rural New Zealand? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Last week I saw a report that fully supports the initiatives this Government is implementing in the rural sector including improvements to rural health. It includes recommendations to expand the number of medical student places as well as increasing training in rural and provincial areas. I refer of course to National’s rural issues policy paper which is nothing more than a cut and paste of current Labour policies. That paper does two things: firstly it endorses current Government initiatives; and secondly it marks a return to the failed policies of the 1990s including the desire to sell Landcorp privatise the Accident Compensation Corporation and undercut labour laws so that farm workers become seasonal workers. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Does the Minister realise that the greatest threat to the rural workforce is the way this Government fails to understand them value them and respect them as recorded in the  
IPAC 2006 General Practice Business Study 
 and then has senior public servants refer to nurses as “vote maximisers”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am very aware of the 2006 study by the Independent Practitioners Association Council. In fact it was a study of 36 general practitioners out of a total of 1100. I accept that some of those recommendations have some validity but I do not accept that the study was a wide-ranging study of the rural health sector across the country.
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10108] 
10.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: Is she confident that having funded 28 days’ respite care for clients with high and complex needs there are adequate services available in every region and for every age group and if she has identified gaps what is she doing about them? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 Funding for services for clients with high and complex needs is actually a matter for the Minister of Health. However I am informed that there is no longer a 28-day maximum and that respite care is allocated on the basis of assessed need. On average clients receive around 31 days’ support. Last year our Government increased residential respite care funding by $2 million and I understand that a further increase will occur this year. Even so shortages of service providers do occur from time to time and they are managed as they arise. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister aware that the current rate of $64 a night for respite care is about the same amount that used to be allocated for MPs’ daily meal allowance and does she agree that such a comparison reflects very badly on the respite daily allowance when caregivers are both feeding and managing clients with high and complex needs? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member is referring to the carer support payment which is not actually a wage. But this fact combined with the tight labour market will certainly contribute to the difficulty in attracting people to this role. My understanding is that announcements on the level of the carer support payments will be made shortly. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What has been done recently to improve services to clients with high and complex needs? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I mentioned earlier the increased funding for residential respite care will help to ensure that those families who are entitled to it will receive it. Our Government is also committed to developing and implementing a carer support strategy. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why have some parents of high and complex needs children found that the only option available for their children for respite care is totally unsuitable rest homes as happened last Christmas and can she assure the House that this will not happen next Christmas? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I mentioned in the answer to the primary question shortages of service providers do occur from time to time; this is more likely to occur around peak times of need for families such as Christmas and they are managed in the best way possible at the time.
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10106] 
8.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to invest further in the provision of out-of-school care? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Government in Budget 2007 has committed a further $17.4 million over the next 5 years to improve the quality affordability and availability of out-of-school services. There are currently 667 out-of-school care and recreation or “OSCAR” providers delivering 1100 approved programmes for 5 to 14-year-olds. The average weekly out-of-school care subsidy payment for parents has more than doubled since 1999 increasing from $17 per week per child to just over $36 per week now. A strong out-of-school sector of course gives parents much more choice in terms of how they combine the responsibilities of work and parenting. It also provides opportunities for children and young people to spend their out-of-school time in more challenging activities which can of course further improve their academic and physical well-being. 
Lesley Soper 
: What will the extra funding do in terms of improving out-of-school services? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The extra funding will be used to increase the pool of funding available to providers to assist with the establishment and development of programmes to raise the average grant to each provider for such purposes—currently $11000 but increasing to $13500—to strengthen the approval process for providers to establish a quality review group to safeguard and improve the standards and the quality of care and to establish 12 leading activity-based extended service programmes in low-decile schools. We are working closely with the sector over the implementation of these initiatives to assist them to continue to improve the quality affordability and availability of out-of-school services to New Zealand families. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of healthy comparison I seek to table that provision of the 1998 Budget showing that New Zealand First gave $38 million to out-of-school care for the first year which somewhat puts this figure of 4 years into— 
Document not tabled.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10098] 
2.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Has she received any reports on changes to eligibility for paid parental leave? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes I have. Last year the Labour-led Government opened up eligibility to the paid parental leave scheme to the self-employed. A recent evaluation of the scheme showed that with this change the scheme is now available to nearly 90 percent of all women in paid work. Paid parental leave is widely embraced by New Zealanders despite being consistently opposed by the National Party. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has she received any other proposals for changes to eligibility? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes. I have received a rather confused proposal that eligibility for paid parental leave should apply only to those who are out of the home. That proposal to give paid parental leave to those who are out of the home actually seems to contradict the whole philosophy of paid parental leave but nevertheless it was made by Kate Wilkinson in the House on Tuesday. I look forward to that fantastic proposal being adopted as National policy!
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Supplementary Questions—Principles 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Supplementary Questions—Principles 
[Volume:640;Page:10095] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I promised yesterday to tell the House of the principles followed by the Chair in allowing supplementary questions. The calling of members to ask supplementary questions is a matter that the Standing Orders leave entirely to the discretion of the Speaker—see Standing Order 378(1). Members to receive the call must stand and call to the Speaker—see Speaker’s Ruling 24/5. But rising and calling to the Speaker is not a race. The Speaker calls whomever the Speaker determines that it is appropriate to call regardless of who rises first. In allocating supplementary questions the Speaker after giving the first supplementary question to the member who asked the primary question generally prefers members in order of size of party. When all parties that wish to do so have asked a question parties can come for a second round of questions and so on again generally in order of size of party. This was the practice that I followed yesterday and the one that I will follow in the future.
Speaker’s Rulings — Supplementary Questions—Principles 
Speaker’s Rulings — Supplementary Questions—Principles 
[Volume:640;Page:10095] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Supplementary Questions—Principles 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I promised yesterday to tell the House of the principles followed by the Chair in allowing supplementary questions. The calling of members to ask supplementary questions is a matter that the Standing Orders leave entirely to the discretion of the Speaker—see Standing Order 378(1). Members to receive the call must stand and call to the Speaker—see Speaker’s Ruling 24/5. But rising and calling to the Speaker is not a race. The Speaker calls whomever the Speaker determines that it is appropriate to call regardless of who rises first. In allocating supplementary questions the Speaker after giving the first supplementary question to the member who asked the primary question generally prefers members in order of size of party. When all parties that wish to do so have asked a question parties can come for a second round of questions and so on again generally in order of size of party. This was the practice that I followed yesterday and the one that I will follow in the future.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:640;Page:10095] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The president of the Labour Party must have been referring to some deep dark secret that I am not aware of.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:640;Page:10095] 
Thursday 21 June 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next Tuesday the first item of business will be the Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill which is along with the Imprest Supply Bill and is a 3-hour debate. Wednesday of course is a members’ day. The priority for Government business for the remainder of the week will be the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill and the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. A message has gone to all parties today seeking their support for leave to take all remaining stages of the Evidence Amendment Bill on Thursday during normal sitting time subject of course to a favourable report from the select committee on the bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House confirm that the president of the Labour Party indicated to a conference last week on electoral accountability that there would be an electoral spending bill in the House this week? Are we to assume that the progress on completing such a bill is now stalled due to numbers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The president of the Labour Party must have been referring to some deep dark secret that I am not aware of.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:640;Page:10095] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House confirm that the president of the Labour Party indicated to a conference last week on electoral accountability that there would be an electoral spending bill in the House this week? Are we to assume that the progress on completing such a bill is now stalled due to numbers?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:640;Page:10095] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next Tuesday the first item of business will be the Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill which is along with the Imprest Supply Bill and is a 3-hour debate. Wednesday of course is a members’ day. The priority for Government business for the remainder of the week will be the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill and the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. A message has gone to all parties today seeking their support for leave to take all remaining stages of the Evidence Amendment Bill on Thursday during normal sitting time subject of course to a favourable report from the select committee on the bill.
Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10144] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I know I have just made a speech and in that speech I think I said four times that I thanked the Social Services Committee. I seek leave to table my speech so that the member can see that I did thank the select committee members on at least three occasions. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.
Points of Order — Access Cards—DistributionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Access Cards—Distribution[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Points of OrderAccess Cards—DistributionDr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wrote to you yesterday regarding what I think is a very important issue which is the issue of the security access passes that have been issued to lobbyists. In that letter I asked whether you could consider the issue further because there have been media reports around it and I believe that the public has a right to know who these people are. I seek some direction from you as to when you will be able to respond to that letter.Mr SPEAKER: This is not a matter of the order of this House; it is a matter that I will deal with as the member has written to me. I will come back to him on the matter once I have given it appropriate consideration.
Members SwornText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMembers Sworn[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Members SwornMr Speaker administered the Oath of Allegiance to the Hon Damien O’Connor who then took his seat in the House.
Vote: Patents Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Patents Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2895. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Patents Bill be now read a first time.Ayes107New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.Noes14Green Party 9; Māori Party 5.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2841. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes68New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Māori Party 5; United Future 1.Noes52New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.Bill read a first time.
Event: Members SwornText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeEvent: Members Sworn[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Members Sworn12Mr Speaker administered the Oath of Allegiance to the Hon Damien O’Connor who then took his seat in the House.
Worth Richard: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWorth Richard: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2899. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs):I seek leave to make two comments lasting no more than 20 seconds. They arise from what the member Chris Hipkins has said.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: I would just like to say this—and I think it is very much on a non-partisan basis; I certainly hope it is. I am particularly keen to ensure two things. The first is that we maximise community funding generated by non-casino gaming machines in commercial premises. I think that is really important. The second thing is that we resolve questionable grant funding practices in this sector. I hope that there might be in the context of work that I plan to do a broad commitment to achieving that sort of outcome.
Henare Tau: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHenare Tau: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2870. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TAU HENARE (National):As my learned colleague Mr David Bennett has said these provisions in the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill deal with the title commencement and the principal Act as amended. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to this: the Act comes into force 6 weeks after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. So from the time the bill was promulgated—Paul Quinn: Prior to July 2008.Hon TAU HENARE: —that is right. Those fellas on the other side—Hon Mita Ririnui: Us fellas?Hon TAU HENARE: —those fellas and “fellesses”—have consistently tried to put up this bill in two parts. We went through the select committee process and through the process of listening to submissions and it was pretty obvious even in the late stages of a dying Government that it could have got the bill through. If only it had used common sense—Paul Quinn: And a will!Hon TAU HENARE: —and had a will to do it the bill would have passed. It had the numbers to pass this part. In fact the Māori Affairs Committee suggested to the previous Minister of Māori Affairs that he should split the bill that everybody would be happy with the first part and that he should leave the second part. But what did the previous Minister do? He was so stuck in the mud that he would not and could not move. The Minister was unwilling to move as my colleague Paul Quinn said and that somewhat shocks me.The fact remains that the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Pita Sharples is the one who has come in and swept aside the old. He is in with the new. How long has it taken him? How long has this Government been in place?Hon Mita Ririnui: Too long!Hon TAU HENARE: Mita Ririnui says that it is too long but we have been in Government only 6 months.Hon Damien O’Connor: It’s 6 months too long.Hon TAU HENARE: Now we hear from Damien O’Connor the new blood of the Labour Party; the new face of the Labour Party! But all kidding aside the commencement date for this bill should have been prior to July 2008 because the previous Minister had it within his powers to shunt this measure along—to move it along—but unfortunately there was not a will when there was a way. So that is the disappointing part of this matter.Clause 1 “Title” states: “This Act is the Māori Trustee Amendment Act 2008.” It is a long time since the actual Māori Trustee Act has been amended. So I suppose to be gracious we have to tip our hats just a little to the previous Minister—Hon Mita Ririnui: Just a little?Hon TAU HENARE: —just a little—for having the discussion and going through the select committee process. But all in all the bill does what it says; it heralds a new era for the Māori Trustee. It heralds a better form of accountability and transparency for beneficiaries—for those people whose lands are tied up under the Māori Trustee. The bill enables the Minister of Māori Affairs to appoint the Māori Trustee and to appoint other people as well.
Bennett David: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBennett David: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2870. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East):Thank you Mr Chairperson for the chance to finish off my call on these very important parts of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill being the title commencement and principal Act amended. Before the Committee stopped for dinner we were talking about the title of the legislation and the very important point that Paul Quinn raised in his speech about the fact that this—Paul Quinn: He missed it! The chief whip missed it.DAVID BENNETT: The chief whip of the Labour Party missed it. The important part is in bold so the chief whip should get it. It states “2008” when the reality is that this bill will be passed in 2009. The very important point that Mr Quinn made was that the Labour Government did not have sufficient grace to pass this bill when it had an opportunity to do so. The reason it did not pass it was that it did not have the votes. It was election year and it was struggling. The other fact is that basically this bill has been amended in the sense that the controversial part is not part of the legislation any more. There was a controversial part to it in the sense of the slush fund that Labour was looking to set aside—Paul Quinn: For their mates.DAVID BENNETT: Yes for its mates for its own purposes and in typical Labour fashion for its own interests. This bill needed to be and is now in the best interests of Māori and in the best interests of the Māori Trustee. That is what the National Government has endeavoured to do and we have achieved it through this legislation.Members will note that the Act commences 6 weeks after the date on which it receives the Royal assent so essentially it comes into force straight away once it has been passed through this House and receives the Royal assent. Clause 3 states that the principal Act amended is the Māori Trustee Act 1953. The important part of the title is not only the word “Māori” but also the word “Trustee”. When we think of a trustee we think of somebody who holds something in trust—somebody who has a fiduciary duty to act on behalf of the beneficiaries of that trust. We have heard throughout the debate on this legislation some issues raised by Tau Henare in particular about the ability to find the beneficiaries. He eloquently related it to the fact that the Inland Revenue Department would be able to pick up someone pretty quickly but the Māori Trustee was not able to do so. He felt there was a dilemma there that should be dealt with in this legislation or in the future as we look at the Māori Trustee going forward and that is a very important thing. I think that although all parties in this Chamber agree with the legislation—
English Bill: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to MinisterText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeEnglish Bill: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2869. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):I wish to clarify an answer I gave in the House today to question No. 8. In answering question No. 8 today I used the number $3 million when I said “$3 million less in salaries”. The cost I quoted was a gross cost for 30 staff. However the Ministerial Services budget will reflect redundancies transition costs associated with the election and changes in remuneration. So the figure I used does not relate directly to a change in the Ministerial Services budget and that may have been the impression I gave the House.
Bennett David: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBennett David: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2869. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East):Clauses 1 2 and 3 are quite simple and relate to the title the commencement and the amendment of the principal Act. Clause 1 states that the title of this legislation is the “Māori Trustee Amendment Act 2008”. If members look at this clause they will see that it says “2008”—Paul Quinn: That was last year!DAVID BENNETT: Yes that was last year. Paul Quinn raised a very good point earlier when he asked why Labour did not pass this legislation last year if it was so good and Labour was able to do it. Well Labour had a slight problem that Mr Quinn might not have been aware of because he was not in the House at that time. Labour had a problem with numbers and it had the problem of an election coming up. Labour was not doing so well at the time and it needed support from within the Māori community because there were some seats that it wanted to win.When we look at the title clause we see that the reference to 2008 is probably incorrect—it should be 2009. So we may have to amend the legislation to take into account the inability of Labour to gain votes last year. That point is at the heart of why there is this inconsistency in the legislation. The title clause clearly refers to 2008. I say to those who are reading the legislation now that the date is typed in bold print. It will be 2009 when the bill is passed so maybe that is an issue that needs to be dealt with by the officials. I do not know whether an amendment has to be made to that provision in order to make sure we pass legislation that is correct. The title says “2008” when in fact the real date in the title will have to be “2009” according to my understanding of calendar years. There is also the fact that we had an election where the Labour Party lost more Māori seats which reflects that Labour had not been recognising what Māori actually wanted.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Debate interrupted.
Sharples Pita: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSharples Pita: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2868. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs):I would like to respond to the kind of challenge that has been waving around the room. I agree with the last speaker that the Māori Trust Office has gone to great pains to seek out owners in a variety of activities. One of the core duties of this Government is to provide extra funding towards the location of beneficial owners but the Māori Trustee has always sought to locate those owners—for example through actively seeking them out by writing to them and by circulating ownership lists at meetings. The Māori Trustee also publishes and distributes an annual unclaimed moneys book. This is available at the Māori Trust Office at Te Puni Kōkiri and at Māori Land Court offices. It is distributed to over 150 Māori organisations and libraries and to Māori MPs and it is also now available online. Māori Trust Office staff check electoral rolls and directly contact other whānau members to try to obtain current addresses. As part of the Māori Land Court succession orders process the Māori Trustee routinely checks and updates client addresses where they are available.Everyone knows how important it is to let people know about the funds to which they are entitled but I would like to make the point emphatically that this is the Māori Trustee’s responsibility. That is why we are setting up the Māori Trustee to be totally independent; it is certainly not for me as Minister to interfere in that. The Māori Trustee is quite independent and should pursue that with vigour not the Minister of Māori Affairs. I ask members to remember that beneficial owners’ money always belongs to beneficiaries. Kia ora.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of the Hon Dr Pita Sharples to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Sharples Pita: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSharples Pita: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2863. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs):I will take another call on this point of redundancy. Clause 28 of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill states that employees are not entitled to redundancy compensation by reason only of their ceasing to be employed by the Māori Trust Office. I think that is the key point—for only that reason. The bill’s provisions are intended to provide continuity for all clients and staff. All staff are transferred to the Māori Trustee. Following that normal employment law applies. What clause 28 really means is that an employee of the Māori Trust Office does not get redundancy just because he or she is no longer employed by the Māori Trust Office. If the employee is surplus to the needs of the Māori Trustee which is a different situation redundancy is not necessarily ruled out by clause 28.
Henare Tau: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHenare Tau: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2848. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TAU HENARE (National):I am intrigued to hear my whanaunga from the north Kelvin Davis talk about progressiveness the idea of a Māori bank and the financial independence of the Māori Trustee. He talked as though the money that was in the common fund—or any fund really—belonged to Māori. Well let me point out that it does not belong to all Māori; it belongs to the beneficiaries whose land is under the auspices of the Māori Trustee. The dividends from that land should be paid to those beneficiaries. It is their money.I am not sure whether Labour members can understand that this money is not for all Māori; this is about the beneficiaries. This is about the shareholders and their property right. So when people talk and wax lyrical about the ideas of a Māori bank I say that they should first and foremost think about whose property right they are taking away in order to establish this so-called brilliant idea of a Māori development fund or bank. I also want to say that this issue has absolutely nothing to do with Part 1; Part 1 is about the independence of the Māori Trustee. It is about the stand-alone nature of the trustee. Part 1 is about how the Māori Trustee is appointed and also about how the Māori Trustee is removed from office—and a few other things I have not got to yet. All in all yes it is great to see the Māori Trustee break away from that influence of Te Puni Kōkiri and strike out on his or her own. But let us not forget that the purpose of the Māori Trustee is to look after the assets of owners of land and of shareholders of land. The position was not set up to do anything else. When we want to change that then we should spell it out as the previous Minister did last year when he wanted to use beneficiary money. There is still an argument about whether that was beneficiary money or whether it was the interest on beneficiary money and I still contend that even the interest belonged to the beneficiaries. If we are to go down that path then let us have a bigger discussion and a bigger consultation around the issue than there has been in the past.Nobody disses the idea of Māori development. Nobody disagrees with a fund for Māori development. The argument was always about where it came from. If it came from a property right that was owned by beneficiaries then that was the sticking point. Nobody wanted to pooh-pooh the idea that the former Minister had; it was all about the propriety of taking the money out of a fund that was essentially a shareholders’ fund. I make those points with all due respect to my colleague and my whanaunga from the north.