edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7003] 
6.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by all his statements? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How can he stand by his personal statement that his personal focus is on getting debt under control or by his call for permanent restraint when his colleague Nick Smith has made inept changes to the emissions trading scheme that will increase Crown debt by up to 8 percent of GDP by 2050 amounting to tens of billions of dollars? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The business of the Government is about making balanced decisions that take into account competing objectives. The Government is balancing all the time the need to keep debt down along with other legitimate shorter-term objectives that serve the public interest. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Given his call for permanent restraint when will he restrain the Minister of Broadcasting and the Minister of Maori Affairs from spending millions of dollars of additional taxpayer money on outbidding each other; and can he confirm comments from the Minister of Broadcasting yesterday that a special appropriation will be necessary to support the Television New Zealand Rugby World Cup bid? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No that’s scuppered. They’ve given up now; TVNZ has dropped him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I take it that the member has finished his question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the member is getting a bit ahead of himself. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What recent reports has he seen on the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen a number of reports that the economy has stopped contracting. It looks as though it has stabilised. But there will continue to be restraint as the member opposite pointed out. Current forecasts include a significant pick-up in growth in the economy but even with that pick-up in growth the Government will be running substantial cash deficits and will need to borrow $250 million per week for the next 4 years. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister of Finance still stand by his advice to the previous Government that there was “room in the surplus to make reducing taxes the normal business of government” and does he agree that the Government’s accounts would now be in a much worse state had the previous Government taken his advice then rather than bequeathing some of the world’s lowest debt best growth and lowest unemployment to the incoming Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. The previous Government had choices with regard to the surpluses and it decided to increase Government spending by 50 percent in the last 5 years when the economy grew by only 25 percent. Now Kiwis are paying the price for that.
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Support for Charities 
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Support for Charities 
[Volume:658;Page:6997] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to a matter relating to visual aids. While answering that question the Prime Minister was displaying an item that he believes promotes a very worthy cause—and I think every member of the House would agree with him on that. The item on the lapel of his suit makes a statement about a cause that he has a political view on and we support his view. Mr Speaker I ask what your view is on that seeing that you do not support other members’ displaying in the Chamber today an item promoting an equally genuinely held belief. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no interruptions—a point of order has been raised and the House should treat it with dignity. If the honourable member cannot distinguish between the Prime Minister’s wearing a badge that reflects he has made a donation to the breast cancer campaign—and wearing such a badge is something people traditionally do; we often wear daffodils on days we make donations to cancer research in general—and what is on display on the bill boxes on the Labour Party benches today then he must forgive me but I am certainly in a different place from the honourable member. Surely he can distinguish between those. I have ruled on the other matter and I expect those signs to come down. I take the matter very seriously. 
Question time resumed.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
[Volume:658;Page:6994] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is disputing my ruling. He will resume his seat immediately. Other Speakers have ruled in the past that such signs cannot be displayed in this House. I am not departing from what previous Speakers have ruled and that is the end of the matter. I look around these walls and see the names of the battles where people died so that we New Zealanders might enjoy freedom of speech in this House and I will ensure that this House is treated with respect while I am the Speaker. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What about the rights of the minorities? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member who has disputed my ruling to stand withdraw and apologise for that right now. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I asked the member to withdraw and apologise the Hon— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Hon Trevor Mallard to stop trifling with the Chair and to get to his feet now and withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
[Volume:658;Page:6994] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not trifling with you Mr Speaker but I think you have just made clear in your ruling that these signs are to be taken away because you do not like them because you consider them to be demeaning. It is my view that we have to be very very careful when someone takes an opinion that is very different from that of a large group of members of Parliament saying that—
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
[Volume:658;Page:6994] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn the honourable member that I will not be trifled with.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
[Volume:658;Page:6993] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the honourable member. When I was educated there was a difference between words displayed like that and speech. The privilege of free speech means that the member is perfectly entitled to speak freely in this Parliament but I make it very clear that signs that demean this Parliament will not be displayed while I am the Speaker. I will not take further time on this matter right now. The Business Committee previously made it very clear that the only signs that could be displayed in this House were the party logos so I expect these signs to be taken down. That is the end of the matter.
Barker Rick: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
Barker Rick: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
[Volume:658;Page:6993] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When someone is elected as the Speaker of this House that person goes to the Governor-General and asks for three privileges. One of those privileges is free speech. I ask you to reflect on your ruling in respect of the privilege of free speech that we have as members of Parliament. If you are to require people to take certain words off their boxes then you should explain to us how that requirement is consistent with our privilege of free speech as members of Parliament.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
[Volume:658;Page:6993] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear further on the matter. I make it very clear to the honourable member that when the Business Committee has discussed this matter in the past it agreed that party logos may be displayed in this House. I have made it very clear to the Business Committee that I do not support that position. I believe that it is demeaning to this Parliament. This is a House of Representatives for New Zealand. I believe that even party logos being displayed in this House is demeaning. But what is displayed on the Labour Party benches today is to me totally unacceptable. I repeat that I want them removed before the end of question time. I will be taking the matter up further with the honourable member to see what will be done about it because I do not consider that to be an acceptable way to treat this Parliament.
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
[Volume:658;Page:6993] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On previous occasions you have signalled your view about logos being displayed on boxes in the House and in the Business Committee for example it has been discussed and you have asked parties to reflect on it. The parties came back to you Mr Speaker and said that it was not a position that parties agreed with. If you look around the Chamber you will see that in fact the bench mate of the member who raised the point of order has turned his own box so that we can all see he has brought a slogan and a logo to the House as well. Apparently that is in order. The members of the party next to him have done the same thing. The National Party itself started it. It does not do it now but it could easily start doing it again. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard and will be heard in silence. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: That is the position that we reached: it was in order to have representations on House boxes. 
David Garrett 
: Speaking to the point of order—
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
[Volume:658;Page:6993] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must say that I am not at all happy with what is on display on those desks. I believe that it is not treating the House with the dignity that it deserves and I ask members to remove them before the end of question time.
Garrett David: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
Garrett David: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
[Volume:658;Page:6993] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice that the members of the entire Labour caucus appear to have on the front of their boxes a slogan promoting a union. I understand that such slogans should be limited to party identification and that slogans or logos promoting a particular cause are not permitted in the House.
Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
[Volume:658;Page:7012] 
Points of Order 
Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You ruled earlier in question time that any offensive material should be removed by the end of question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a perfectly good point. I would ask the Hon Trevor Mallard to— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am not touching someone else’s— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Labour whip please to remove that. I ask him to do it right away please. [ 
Interruption 
] This is a point of order and will be heard in silence. The Speaker ruled that those will be removed by the end of question time. I allowed members—[ 
Interruption 
] There will be no noise while a point of order is being considered. [ 
Interruption 
] I will choose to ignore that.
Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Support for Charities 
Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Support for Charities 
[Volume:658;Page:6997] 
Points of Order 
Signage in the Chamber—Support for Charities 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to a matter relating to visual aids. While answering that question the Prime Minister was displaying an item that he believes promotes a very worthy cause—and I think every member of the House would agree with him on that. The item on the lapel of his suit makes a statement about a cause that he has a political view on and we support his view. Mr Speaker I ask what your view is on that seeing that you do not support other members’ displaying in the Chamber today an item promoting an equally genuinely held belief. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no interruptions—a point of order has been raised and the House should treat it with dignity. If the honourable member cannot distinguish between the Prime Minister’s wearing a badge that reflects he has made a donation to the breast cancer campaign—and wearing such a badge is something people traditionally do; we often wear daffodils on days we make donations to cancer research in general—and what is on display on the bill boxes on the Labour Party benches today then he must forgive me but I am certainly in a different place from the honourable member. Surely he can distinguish between those. I have ruled on the other matter and I expect those signs to come down. I take the matter very seriously. 
Question time resumed.
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:4231] 
12.  
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What progress has been achieved in honouring the commitments that the Ministry of Education made to Aorangi School in 2006 to replace the rotting buildings so that children are no longer forced to learn in cramped damp and cold buildings? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am advised by the ministry that it is meeting the costs of health and safety issues as and when they arise. With regard to the review of the school’s overall capital programme this review will be concluded shortly. I have arranged to go down and speak to the school’s board and principal in 2 weeks’ time. 
Rahui Katene 
: Why have students at Aorangi School had to continue learning in dilapidated and relocatable classrooms riddled with rot and moisture and with no insulation even though the previous Minister of Education announced in June 2007 that Aorangi School would be rebuilt as a “21st century learning environment” and the Prime Minister made a commitment before last year’s election that he would not let pupils “freeze at my old school”? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I want to ensure that the children at Aorangi School are in a suitable learning environment. That is why I decided to review the school’s request for additional capital and why I will go down and speak to the school’s board and principal in 2 weeks’ time to discuss it with them. I assure that member that I am advised that at least $270000 has been spent on health and safety issues including an electrical upgrade the installation of heat pumps and dehumidifiers and ongoing monitoring of air quality.
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:4230] 
11.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Is it his opinion that keeping sows in crates for weeks on end where they cannot even turn round is cruel; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 It is my opinion that it is cruel and unacceptable to have sows in crates indefinitely. This Government is committed to best practice in animal welfare which is why after viewing the recent disturbing footage I have taken action and demanded that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee review with urgency the pig code of welfare. I hope the member and members of the public will make their views known to the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Will the Minister make a commitment in this House that he will personally visit a range of intensive pig farms in New Zealand preferably with the media so that he can see at firsthand the suffering of pigs in sow crates or will he continue to rely on the advice of the chair of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee who claimed on television recently that pigs are probably happy in sow crates? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have already visited a number of pig farms. I did not do so with the media because I will make sure that best practice in animal welfare is delivered based on science and reason not on blind emotion as that member would wish it to be. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the review of sow crates? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have seen reports that the previous two Labour Ministers of Agriculture the Hon Jim Sutton and the Hon Jim Anderton refused to ban sow crates and emphasised the need for the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee process to be followed. I have also seen a report of the deputy leader of Labour the Hon Annette King on Newstalk ZB last month supporting this Government’s approach to the sow crate issue and agreeing with the actions I was taking. This is the responsible approach and I thank Labour for taking that approach. 
Sue Kedgley 
: On the Minister’s recent visits to intensive pig farms in New Zealand did he discover that the practices that were screened on television recently are widespread in some pig farms and will he therefore do as he and the Prime Minister promised and use his powers as Minister to require changes to the pig code including the phasing out of sow crates; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I ask that member to familiarise herself with the Animal Welfare Act. By law I cannot override the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee process and ban sow crates immediately. Sections 70 to 79 of the Act make it absolutely clear that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee process must be followed. That is the law that was passed by Parliament. I intend to adhere to the law and I think that member should stop being irresponsible and should adhere to the laws of this land.
Bennett Paula: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 
Bennett Paula: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 
[Volume:654;Page:4265] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct an answer from question time today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not to be. The member may resume. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: In question time I inadvertently gave an incorrect figure for the Job Support Scheme for the week ending 22 May. The number of jobs saved under the Job Support Scheme is 259.
Goff Phil: Tabling of Documents — Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct 
Goff Phil: Tabling of Documents — Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct 
[Volume:654;Page:4262] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a statement from a complainant whose case I took to Mr Key recently regarding the conduct of Dr Richard Worth. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not to be. Leave is granted. The papers may be tabled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Goff Phil: Tabling of Documents — Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct 
Goff Phil: Tabling of Documents — Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct 
[Volume:654;Page:4260] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker Roy I am happy for the Government whip to make that phone call.
Tremain Chris: Tabling of Documents — Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct 
Tremain Chris: Tabling of Documents — Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct 
[Volume:654;Page:4259] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I am more than happy if the— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member will seek leave again. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: No hold on. That is not what I am asking. If Phil Goff is happy to wait for 5 minutes I will check as to whether that tabling is OK. Then I would ask him to seek leave again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: We are getting outside actual points of order here. Leave has been declined in an exchange that is probably not within the realms of order. I think a message has been passed.
Goff Phil: Tabling of Documents — Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct 
Goff Phil: Tabling of Documents — Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct 
[Volume:654;Page:4259] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just come down to the Chamber from my office where I heard the leader of the National Party the Prime Minister Mr Key challenging me to present the evidence. I am doing just that so perhaps the whip would reconsider his answer.
Goff Phil: Tabling of Documents — Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct 
Goff Phil: Tabling of Documents — Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct 
[Volume:654;Page:4259] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I apologise for interrupting my colleague. I seek leave of the House to table a statement from a complainant whose case I took to Mr Key. It sets out the nature of the concerns she has with respect to Dr Worth— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think we know what the document is. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There is.
Chauvel Charles: Budget Debate 
Chauvel Charles: Budget Debate 
[Volume:654;Page:4259] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 During the election campaign John Key Bill English and other National members spoke at length about the need to make sure that our economic priorities as a nation are not overshadowed by environmental considerations. Well unlike National we on this side of the House believe that promoting economic growth and sound environmental outcomes are not mutually exclusive. Here in New Zealand we trade literally and physically on our clean and green image. In the global market place demonstrating that a product is environmentally sustainable is increasingly a key issue for New Zealand goods and services. 
This Budget was a chance to solidify New Zealand’s reputation by promoting growth encouraging investment and creating new jobs while maintaining leadership on environmental and climate change policy. The tragedy of this Budget is that it truly is one of lost opportunities. Bill English John Key and National failed to provide a plan for a sustainable future. All around the globe Governments are using opportunities presented by the economic crisis to invest in what we all know is the necessary and inevitable transition to a lower-pollution economy. Governments are doing so in Australia Britain and the United States but these sorts of measures are completely absent from Bill English’s Budget. Where is the investment in improved fuel efficiency increased public transport renewable electricity generation or the other essential initiatives to achieving long-term low-pollution economic growth? They are all missing. Since taking office in November National has simply walked away from a strategy for long-term low-pollution economic growth. 
Debate interrupted.
Cosgrove Clayton: Budget Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: Budget Debate 
[Volume:654;Page:4236] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Although I am indebted to my learned colleague Sue Moroney I take no offence. It simply shows what a thug Mr Quinn is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It is not helpful to cast aspersions on individuals. The member Sue Moroney makes a valid point. People should not deliberately move seats to disrupt a speech and I accept that as a general principle but there has to be a level of threshold. I have made this point before: if members interjected only from their seats we would lose one of the ambiences of this House. Members who will be speaking drift generally towards the front benches and the exchange backwards and forwards creates a debate. This is a debating chamber. People did not build this place to be a lecture theatre and interjections are part of a debate. But the interjections should be to the point hopefully witty somewhat insightful and not just a barrage of noise. 
The member interjecting was noisy. He made the point that he can be heard from anywhere in the Chamber and I do not doubt him on that. But if it goes beyond the point where I cannot hear or others cannot hear then I certainly will ask members to be quiet. Mr Quinn should take note that members have objected to the level of noise and he should consider how he interjects. We will see how he goes on interjecting on the next speaker.
Quinn Paul: Budget Debate 
Quinn Paul: Budget Debate 
[Volume:654;Page:4236] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 There are a number of references about moving around the House; I refer to Speakers’ rulings 63/1 63/2 63/3 and so on. The issue is that a member is not allowed to move seats to advance his or her ability to interject. Since I have been a member of the House a number of people including Speakers of the House have commented that it would not matter where I sat because my beautiful baritone melodic voice would be heard anywhere. So I put it to you that moving from my seat does not advance my position.
Moroney Sue: Budget Debate 
Moroney Sue: Budget Debate 
[Volume:654;Page:4236] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt my colleague’s very fine speech but I point out that the National Party has obviously found a purpose for Paul Quinn. That purpose is him moving to another seat from his own to yell and scream when members are making their Budget speeches because he does not want to hear what his Government has done. I ask you to restrain Mr Quinn from his practice and he did it yesterday as well of moving to another seat in order to yell and scream at the member speaking.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:4222] 
5.  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What steps has the Government recently taken to help New Zealand’s agriculture sector meet its climate change obligations? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 On Tuesday I announced that the Government as part of the Primary Growth Partnership will establish the Centre for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research. This bricks and mortar centre will be focused solely on developing solutions for reducing New Zealand’s agricultural emissions. The work of the centre will be vital in securing New Zealand’s future economic growth by delivering effective and affordable abatement technologies to the primary sector. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why has the Government decided to establish the Centre for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Government is committed to ensuring that New Zealand meets its climate change obligations. Because of our unique greenhouse gas profile with around 50 percent of our emissions coming from agriculture very simply we have to find solutions to reduce agricultural emissions. The ongoing funding certainty from Government will provide the incentives for scientists and industry to commit to long-term projects required to solve these emission challenges. 
Shane Ardern 
: What other steps is the Government taking to support research into agricultural greenhouse gas? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: This centre is just the beginning. Our intention is that the New Zealand centre will link internationally and play a major role in an international research centre. A ministerial steering group is currently developing a set of principles to guide New Zealand’s work in this area as well as funding commitments. My colleague the Hon Tim Groser informs me that the concept of an international research centre has been received with considerable interest and support overseas. This is of global significance to a collective effort and New Zealand must be at the forefront of this work. 
David Garrett 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on the cost to the agriculture sector of an emissions trading scheme; if so how do those figures compare with the $6 billion reduction in GDP and decline in farm values of over 40 percent projected by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have seen a number of reports with various figures and costings for the agricultural sector. It is absolutely critical that we embark on finding abatement technologies to minimise the economic impact on the agricultural sector because the sector is so vital to the economy of New Zealand.
Bennett Paula: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett Paula: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:4220] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 May I please correct my answer to a question regarding the job support scheme. I want to give the member Annette King the correct number that she was asking for. I gave the wrong number. The job support scheme has created 303 jobs and it supports over 700 workers.
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:4220] 
3.  
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has the Government received on the returns on major capital expenditure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 On 1 July 2008 the previous Government acquired KiwiRail Holdings for $690 million. Since then taxpayers have provided further financial support of $322 million. Yesterday’s financial statements show a current valuation made by PricewaterhouseCoopers of $349 million or barely half of the acquisition cost. Taxpayers have thus lost at least $300 million with no chance of recovering that loss. 
Amy Adams 
: What other financial issues related to Government capital expenditure is he aware of? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There will certainly be ongoing financial issues relating to Government capital expenditure on KiwiRail. We expect it will take several years to sort out that mess. That matter comes on top of a track record of capital cost blowouts such as the prison building programme where costs escalated by over 30 percent and the new Supreme Court that started out as a $19 million project and ended up costing $83 million. 
Amy Adams 
: What plans does the Government have to ensure that future capital spending is better directed? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The economic outlook has changed considerably and the Government will need to ensure that every dollar of capital is spent effectively. One step we have taken is to establish the National Infrastructure Unit to oversee major capital expenditure. The unit will ensure that New Zealand’s long-term infrastructure needs are well understood that major projects are subject to proper economic appraisal and that the Government improves its procurement practices across the board.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Volume:654;Page:4217] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could advise us on the status of the Immigration Bill which has slipped down to No. 17 on the Order Paper and whether we can expect large Supplementary Order Papers on that bill. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The Immigration Bill will be dealt with when the House finds time to do so.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:654;Page:4217] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Today the House will adjourn for a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 16 June it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Budget debate the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill and other bills on the Order Paper. It is expected that Wednesday 17 June will be a members’ day.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 
[Volume:654;Page:4265] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct an answer from question time today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not to be. The member may resume. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: In question time I inadvertently gave an incorrect figure for the Job Support Scheme for the week ending 22 May. The number of jobs saved under the Job Support Scheme is 259.
Tabling of Documents — Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct 
Tabling of Documents — Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct 
[Volume:654;Page:4262] 
Tabling of Documents 
Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a statement from a complainant whose case I took to Mr Key recently regarding the conduct of Dr Richard Worth. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not to be. Leave is granted. The papers may be tabled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Tabling of Documents — Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct 
Tabling of Documents — Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct 
[Volume:654;Page:4259] 
Tabling of Documents 
Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I apologise for interrupting my colleague. I seek leave of the House to table a statement from a complainant whose case I took to Mr Key. It sets out the nature of the concerns she has with respect to Dr Worth— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think we know what the document is. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There is. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just come down to the Chamber from my office where I heard the leader of the National Party the Prime Minister Mr Key challenging me to present the evidence. I am doing just that so perhaps the whip would reconsider his answer. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I am more than happy if the— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member will seek leave again. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: No hold on. That is not what I am asking. If Phil Goff is happy to wait for 5 minutes I will check as to whether that tabling is OK. Then I would ask him to seek leave again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: We are getting outside actual points of order here. Leave has been declined in an exchange that is probably not within the realms of order. I think a message has been passed. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker Roy I am happy for the Government whip to make that phone call.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:654;Page:4217] 
Thursday 4 June 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Today the House will adjourn for a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 16 June it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Budget debate the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill and other bills on the Order Paper. It is expected that Wednesday 17 June will be a members’ day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could advise us on the status of the Immigration Bill which has slipped down to No. 17 on the Order Paper and whether we can expect large Supplementary Order Papers on that bill. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The Immigration Bill will be dealt with when the House finds time to do so.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:4503] 
8.  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What reports has she received on prison capacity? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I have received several reports on the looming prison capacity crisis that this Government inherited. This crisis was first signalled in the briefing to the incoming Minister which noted: “An immediate concern is the prospect that existing in-use capacity is exhausted by mid-2010.” Since then I have received other reports from the department on the crisis. The Government has been forced to take immediate action to ensure that the Department of Corrections does not run out of beds next year. 
Shane Ardern 
: What options are being considered to address the looming capacity crisis? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Unlike the previous Government this Government is working to ensure that we can house those prisoners. We need to deal with the fact that we will run out of baseline beds next year. Double-bunking and increasing capacity on existing prison sites using containers are viable short-term solutions. Justice sector forecasts point to an extra 5000 prison beds being required by 2018. Clearly we will also have to build a new prison and collectively we also need to try to reduce the number of people going to prison in the first place. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister take pride or shame in the fact that New Zealand has the second-highest rate of imprisonment in the developed world after the USA and how will keeping prisoners in containers reduce reoffending rates? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Actually it is a national disgrace for this country to have the second-highest rate of incarceration after the United States. I have to say that it is a bit rich for that member to ever try to say anything about it because when his party took power there were 5000 prisoners in our prisons and now there are 8500. That is the legacy that Phil Goff left us with. 
Shane Ardern 
: What reports has she received on the cost of using containers at existing prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The latest costs I have from the department are for a landed per bed cost of $7625 and a plugged-in cost per bed of $53000 to $63000. That includes hardening concrete base service connections and unit-based infrastructure. Those costs could fall further given the interest in providing these containers that is being shown around the country. Containers are a viable and cost-effective solution and whatever option we choose we would have to provide a secure clean and humane living environment for prisoners.
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:655;Page:4567] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker the House has made good progress this evening. I seek leave for the House to rise early. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Smith Nick: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4567] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I move  
That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill be considered by the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee 
 with an instruction that the committee report finally to the House on or before 26 June 2009 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Kaye Nikki: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Kaye Nikki: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4566] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise to speak on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill this evening. I was very fortunate to be in Ethiopia with the member opposite Mr Nash. When I was in Ethiopia I had the opportunity to chair a climate change committee. One thing I was very clear on is that many nations around the world are trying to do something about reducing their emissions. But one thing that has been made very apparent to members on this side of the House tonight by members opposite—and Moana Mackey said this quite clearly—is that those members are concerned about the issue of the rhetoric versus the reality. I want to make one point this evening: if we continue to talk about being world leaders in climate change policy then we will fail. At the end of the day nations should be judged on their record and the record of the members opposite in terms of the environment and in terms of climate change is pretty appalling. As a nation our aim should actually be to be judged on our record. 
The reason we are here this evening is to amend the Climate Change Response Act by delaying certain requirements applicable to the forestry sector under the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. This was part of our confidence and supply agreement with the ACT Party whereby we established a special select committee to review aspects of existing climate change policy. 
We in the National Party have very clear principles in the area of reducing emissions and one of them that I want to talk about this evening—it is relevant to my background; I did a Bachelor of Science in genetics—is that good science is essential to quality environmental decision-making. Some really exciting stuff is happening in New Zealand in that area at the moment. I know that this Government is very committed to making sure that good science is behind any decisions that are made in terms of reducing emissions. 
I would like to talk further about that point but the other point that I would like to make this evening is that as the Minister has said without this bill many forest owners would unknowingly find themselves in breach of the law. That is why it is essential that we proceed with this legislation this evening. You know New Zealand is the first country in the world to attempt to introduce forestry into an emissions trading scheme and these extensions are about taking the time to get critical details right. 
I am pleased to stand this evening and support this bill because it is really important that we get the details right and that we make sure that we have good science behind our environmental decision-making. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.
Upston Louise: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Upston Louise: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4564] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill. The bill delays the reporting requirements under the emissions trading scheme and the publication of the allocation plan by the Government because the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee process is yet to be completed. It is a hard-working committee. It has been considering a lot of submissions but its work is not yet complete. 
The current law under the Climate Change Response Act requires foresters to report any deforestation during 2008 by 31 January 2009. They need to apply for exemptions for small forest blocks by 30 June 2009. Those dates are unreasonable given the committee review and the lack of public awareness of the requirements. Without this bill which is a technical bill that amends a date many forest owners would unknowingly find themselves in breach of the law or adversely affected. It does not make sense for the Government to publish an allocation plan by 30 June this year for pre-1990 forest owners when issues around offsetting and the underlying approach to the emissions trading scheme are still being considered by the review committee. 
I would add that New Zealand is the first country in the world to attempt to introduce forestry into an emissions trading scheme. These extensions are about having the time to get this right. It is critical that the details are accurate. This industry is of significant financial and environmental importance to New Zealand. In the Taupo electorate over 1000 people are employed in forestry so I like many others in the House am particularly aware of the need to get this right. 
Let us have a look at this industry. We are talking about a date change in this amendment bill. New Zealand has one of the largest areas of protected natural forest in the world—nearly 6 million hectares. It is also home to the world’s biggest and most intensively managed tree plantations which cover nearly 1.8 million hectares. Of those 1.8 million hectares we are talking about 650000 hectares that are pre-1990 forest. 
As I said before the forestry industry is vitally important in the Taupo electorate. It is very important that we get this right. I along with the Minister of Forestry David Carter recently met with companies involved in forestry in Tokoroa and Taupo. They expressed their grave concerns about the proposed time frames. Tonight they will breathe a sigh of relief knowing that the Government is taking a pragmatic and cautious approach. 
I am delighted to support the first reading of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill which is in the name of the Hon Nick Smith. I commend the bill to the House.
English Bill: Imprest Supply (First for 2009/10) Bill — Third Reading 
English Bill: Imprest Supply (First for 2009/10) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4548] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2009/10) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
English Bill: Appropriation (2008/09 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
English Bill: Appropriation (2008/09 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4547] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2008/09 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:655;Page:4547] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2008/09 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2009/10) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bills read a second time.