edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Beyer Georgina: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — Second Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3573] 
This is one of those bills whereby local communities want to make a local decision and this local community has done so. Wide support was presented to us from the Gisborne community as has been outlined by Anne Tolley and my colleague Moana Mackey. On those grounds the committee took the view of being permissive rather than restrictive in what it wanted to achieve for the Gisborne District Council and I believe that the bill as it stands at its second reading certainly achieves that. 
 I have to endorse the disappointment being expressed about the delay in putting this bill through all its stages on this particular members’ day. That is most unfortunate because it is the kind of thing that makes delays costly in some respects to local people in more ways than one and more time-wasting than necessary for something where a local decision has been made. There was a requirement for Parliament also to have a say which can be irksome in itself but which can also expedite things very quickly. I believe this bill has indicated to the local people that we would really like them to proceed in the way they wish to regarding Alfred Cox Park and its uses and some of the amenities the community has become quite attached to. 
In conclusion I wish that this legislation may be speeded further on the next members’ day so that it can be expedited very quickly. I support the bill.
Beyer Georgina: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — Second Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3573] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I will take just a very brief call on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. I acknowledge Anne Tolley for her caretaking of the bill as the local member and of course I acknowledge the previous member Janet Mackey for her efforts in bringing the bill before the House.
Donnelly Brian: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — Second Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3572] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 In noting Moana Mackey’s comments about Gisborne I recall my time living at Te Araroa. At the time Gisborne which was 100 kilometres away was the closest place to get a haircut—I had to go down to Gisborne to get my hair cut. I also note that the bill was initially introduced by Janet Mackey and I take the opportunity if she is listening to ask whether she has managed to hold on to her sunglasses in the absence of the careful attention of her former New Zealand First colleagues. Janet will know the story behind that one! 
New Zealand First’s position is that this bill simply represents a common-sense solution to one of those legal conundrums we get ourselves into from time to time not because of any malice or ill attention—indeed in the absence of such—but simply because of the way the statute is expressed or because of conflicts between different statutes. We find ourselves having to put up statute amendment bills for example for the very same reason. This bill seems to me to be a common-sense solution to one of those conundrums. 
It is to be noted that the committee on which I have to note there was no New Zealand First representation has made some changes to the legislation as Anne Tolley pointed out. The committee believes that those changes are needed to prevent any confusion regarding the bill’s effects and purposes. The promoter of the bill the Gisborne District Council does not consider the changes necessary but having not been there to listen to the arguments from the law drafters New Zealand First has confidence in the very good members of this committee and its officials. I personally have confidence in the deputy chairman—his having been a county clerk for I believe 18 years in Hokianga means that he has some understanding of local government. 
So New Zealand First will be voting for this bill. We note there were only two submissions and one oral presentation that lasted 10 minutes. Consideration took only 43 minutes so we do not believe we should be spending huge amounts of valuable House time on this bill and we wish to express our disappointment that it could not go through all its stages here today. Certainly the fact that it was not able to do so was not due to any opposition from New Zealand First. New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:631;Page:3569] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to introduce the Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill forthwith. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly free to seek leave. Is there any objection? There is.
Peters Winston: General Debate 
Peters Winston: General Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3563] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect unless you are a soothsayer you would not know what the “h” word is. Unless you are clairvoyant or a soothsayer you do not know what word I was using at all and you cannot therefore rule me out until I offend in a way that you understand and comprehend. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Peters. Both of us have been here a long time.
Robertson H V Ross: General Debate 
Robertson H V Ross: General Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3563] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to the member that using the “h” word like he has is an imputation and members cannot get around the rules about unparliamentary language by a circumlocution.
Peters Winston: General Debate 
Peters Winston: General Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3559] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.  
Hansard 
 will record that I raised two issues in my point of order. One was in respect of Gerry Brownlee calling somebody in this House a liar—we all heard it; he should have been ticked off in front of the House. The second issue of course was not as Maurice Williamson described it. When I sat down I was shown the paper not beforehand—bad luck!
Williamson Maurice: General Debate 
Williamson Maurice: General Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3559] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do so in the break between one person speaking and the next because I think it is discourteous to break up a person’s speech. However Mr Peters does not think the same way. Mr Assistant Speaker Mr Peters took a point of order a while ago which you did not actually respond to about the Opposition not taking its proper calls. I would have thought that it was clear to anybody who read the order of calls sheet for today that the No. 3 call went to the Progressive party which Pete Hodgson took because Mr Anderton did not take it and the No. 4 call went to the Labour Party as it was— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Williamson. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Mr Assistant Speaker I want to get this very clear. Mr Peters took the point of order even when his associate the Hon Brian Donnelly pushed the order of calls sheet in front of him and pointed out it was a Progressive party call then a Labour call. I saw Mr Donnelly pointing that out but Mr Peters decided to break up Lianne Dalziel’s speech—his own coalition partner. You did not respond and I think you had a responsibility to tell this House and Mr Peters that he had got it wrong. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Williamson. The point is well made.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3558] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I assume in that regard that you will be asking Steve Chadwick Miss Yates Miss Street and Miss Mackey to all go back to their seats so that we do not have to put up with the paint-stripping performance we heard throughout that speech.
Tanczos Nandor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tanczos Nandor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3551] 
11.  
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does he support the five core policies of the New Zealand waste strategy three of which are: a sound legislative basis for waste minimisation and management adequate and accessible information and efficient use of materials? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister agree that the core policy of efficient pricing would be assisted by a waste levy as supported by both local government representatives and most of the waste industry and contained in Part 5 of my Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill due for its first reading this afternoon and at what level does he think it needs to be set to provide an effective disincentive for waste generation? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I am generally supportive of a waste levy and to that end I have asked the Ministry for the Environment to facilitate discussions between stakeholders such as local government and the industry. In respect of the level I would like to see further discussion of that matter if agreement cannot be reached by those parties as part of the select committee process that I expect will follow. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does he agree that efficient use of materials would be assisted by the implementation of extended producer responsibility as contained in Part 6 of my bill to encourage brand owners to design waste out of their production and delivery systems and does he agree that the danger of wholly voluntary agreements such as we have to date is that they allow irresponsible brand owners to free-ride? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Broadly yes. I have been pleased with the progress to date in the voluntary regime for example in the printing and packaging industry but I do acknowledge the reality of the free-rider issue and I look forward to it being further canvassed in select committee discussions. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister believe that the Government should lead by example in the area of waste minimisation as my bill requires; if so how is replacing beige wastepaper bins with green wastepaper bins as is currently being done in Parliament consistent with that; and how is replacing water carafes and glasses with disposable plastic cups and energy-efficient water coolers consistent with that? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am pleased to confirm to the member that the Govt3 project is encouraging Government agencies to improve the sustainability of their activities and that all 43 core public service agencies are now involved in that programme. I am advised that the Parliamentary Service has had a recycling scheme in place since the early 1990s and is currently in the process of relaunching that brand. Although I am a little surprised that the member objects to his waste bins turning green I can confirm that I have no responsibility for the decisions of the general manager of the Parliamentary Service.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3551] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is obviously a matter that was discussed with the Clerk’s Office. The assessment made at that time was that the inclusion of the other matters was not necessary to render the question intelligible. I note the member’s point that some of the other questions are a bit longer but it would be for that reason—that it was necessary for sense. However as this is a day for reminding members that all questions and answers should be succinct I think the point is usefully made. I think the question is understood by the Minister but I thank the member for raising it.
Tanczos Nandor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tanczos Nandor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3551] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When I set this question down for the Minister for the Environment because it relates to the New Zealand waste strategy and the five core policies in it I included a brief outline of what those five policies are which is a sound legislative basis for waste minimisation and management efficient pricing high environmental standards adequate and accessible information and efficient use of resources. My staff were told that my question could contain only three of those policies. It does not make any sense to me at all that that should be the case particularly when a brief look at the questions today shows that my question is not a particularly long one.
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3549] 
9.  
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What percentage of the $34 million allocated to Plunket is dedicated to addressing Maori health and how is this demonstrated in the contract between the Ministry of Health and Plunket? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Just over one-fifth of all new babies in Plunket’s care are Maori but they probably receive somewhat more services than that because Plunket’s services are targeted somewhat towards lower socio-economic groups. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is it correct that Plunket has not performed well in the highest-deprivation area deciles 8 to 10; and what will the Minister instruct the Ministry of Health to do about that in the development of its Well Child contract? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I substantially disagree with the member’s assertion that Plunket has not performed well in the area of deciles 8 to 10 though it is true that it took Plunket a while to get there. The Government believes that Plunket’s face-to-face contracts are generally of a very high standard. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Government’s investment in Plunket increased since 2000; if so by how much has it increased? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: This Labour-led Government has increased public investment in Plunket by more than 60 percent since 2000. This Government values the Well Child services that have made Plunket the institution it is today and this Government is willing to invest heavily in these services in order to improve the health of all New Zealand children. 
Tariana Turia 
: Why is Plunket negotiating with the ministry to use the $2 million of underspent funding that should have been spent on Maori and Pacific health to pay for the multi-employment collective agreement with nurses; and what action will the Minister instruct the Ministry of Health to take? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member has raised a matter about which I was unaware. I say to her that funding for Plunket is targeted not by ethnicity but by socio-economic deprivation therefore it is difficult for me to agree with her assertion that some Maori and Pacific funding has gone somewhere else. 
Tariana Turia 
: Does the Minister consider that this underspend and reallocation of funding will address the disparities in Maori health; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government’s approach to the Well Child contracts be they with Plunket—which provides about 80 percent of the contracts—or with the other 60 or 70 Tamariki Ora Well Child Schedule providers throughout the country is based in part on socio-economic deprivation but it is not based on ethnicity.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3546] 
7.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Has she received any recent reports concerning New Zealand’s no-fault ACC system? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 As a matter of fact I have. I have seen a report of a health-care conference in Auckland where an American speaker from the Harvard School of Public Health Edward Dauer speaking at that conference described the Accident Compensation Corporation’s system of dealing with medical injuries as “the most sophisticated in the world”. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Did the report elaborate on those comments? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes it did. Those comments were backed up by a medical law expert Dr Marie Bismark whose research shows that compared with the private American system for dealing with medical injuries which is based on expensive litigation our no-fault accident compensation scheme is faster and fairer more patients can get compensation and rehabilitation and our scheme also contributes to future improvements in the health-care system. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does she intend to implement the recent ministerial panel’s recommendation that “those with impairment regardless of cause be entitled to a comparable level of medical social and vocational rehabilitation as those who receive ACC cover”; if so given the huge cost implications where will she get the money from other than from significant extra taxes? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In fact some parts of section 31 of the committee’s report have already been implemented. An example is the extension of the support from Work and Income services for people on an invalids benefit or a sickness benefit which showed at one trial site a reduction of 14 percent in the number of people on an invalids benefit compared with those who are without such services. That is not extra expenditure. That is extra finance to the Government and extra investment in New Zealanders. I thought the member might support that. 
Peter Brown 
: In the light of that favourable report from the overseas expert what credence does she give to many many New Zealanders who have some real genuine concerns and complaints about the Accident Compensation Corporation and the system? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am sure that a scheme as comprehensive in terms of cover as New Zealand’s accident compensation scheme is not without fault. Any systemic issue that the member wants to draw to my attention will certainly receive the appropriate response.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3543] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. In effect although it raised a different Speaker’s ruling it was substantially about the matter I have ruled on. But I will deal with the matter the member has raised specifically. Speaker’s ruling 139/5 deals with the situation where a question has been disallowed. That is not the case here; the question has been allowed. As I said I do not want to repeat the considered ruling that I have given; I have ruled.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3543] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It relates to Speaker’s ruling 139/5 which makes it very clear that where a Minister indicates a question is outside his or her area of portfolio responsibility or challenges its validity it has to be reconsidered. Notwithstanding all the points Dr Cullen made it remains a fact that if the New Zealand Police are the enforcement agency they are working under direction from the Security Intelligence Service. The policy place is the Security Intelligence Service. 
There is no dispute about who the Minister responsible for the Security Intelligence Service is and this question—both when it was first lodged and when it was altered afterwards to accommodate the Prime Minister’s office—most certainly goes to the heart of the confidence the Security Intelligence Service has that its policy will be enacted. I think that on such a serious matter the Prime Minister should reconsider whether Speaker’s ruling 138/2 is an appropriate course for the Government to fall on because quite clearly it would mean the Prime Minister is indicating that many matters relating to the Security Intelligence Service have nothing to do with her and therefore sit well outside the normal perusal of this Parliament. That is not right.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3542] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I have not dealt with the point of order that is already on the table so if I could deal with that then I would be very happy Mr Brownlee to take your next point of order. 
Speakers’ rulings 138/3 and 138/5 referred to by the member do not appear in this instance to be engaged because of the nature of the question. There is no one Minister who is so primarily responsible for the subject that that Minister and only that Minister can be expected to reply to it. The basic rule is that the question should be addressed of course by the Minister primarily responsible and that is in Speaker’s ruling 137/6. A question such as this one relating to the Security Intelligence Service and other law enforcement authorities clearly crosses a number of portfolios and could be answered by any one of a number of Ministers. It is for the Ministers to decide which Minister should answer the question in these circumstances and the Speaker cannot intervene. I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 137/7 137/8 and 138/1. 
Mr Brownlee you have another point of order. I do not want to relitigate the matter on this one but if it is a different point of order that is fine.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3542] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The question refers to the Security Intelligence Service and other law enforcement authorities in relation to matters regarding terrorists etc. There are two points that need to be made about that. The first is that the police are the lead agency in respect of the prevention of terrorism not the Security Intelligence Service. The second is that the Security Intelligence Service is not in fact a law enforcement authority; it is an intelligence agency which is not the same thing. I am sure members will realise there is an important distinction between those two. I further add that the Terrorism Suppression Act is not within the responsibility of the Prime Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank both members. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have heard both sides of the argument at some length so I thank the member. I am prepared to rule. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: So you will not take my point of order?
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3541] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As you will see Madam Speaker this question relates to the operation of the Security Intelligence Service and accordingly it was lodged this morning addressed to the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service the Prime Minister. During this morning my office was advised that the Prime Minister’s office had advised the Clerk’s Office that the Security Intelligence Service was not responsible for identifying terrorists nor for stopping them from entering New Zealand. 
Leaving aside the rather interesting question of what that leaves members of the Security Intelligence Service to do other than eat their lunch it raises a serious problem for the Opposition. I want to refer you to Speakers’ rulings on page 138 and specifically to rulings 3 4 and 5. Those rulings make it clear you are not obliged to accept the transfer of a question by a Minister and the Speakers’ rulings make it clear that where the information that is the subject of the question is so substantially held by one Minister your transfer of such a question would be an abuse. Speaker’s ruling 138/5 makes it clear that you do have the power to refuse to permit a transfer if the personal knowledge of the Minister who has transferred the question might be such that another Minister would have difficulty giving the appropriate answer. 
I refer you to the fact that yesterday I asked a primary question and some supplementary questions about the operation of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and clearly that was my intent with this question today. The designating authority under that Act is the Prime Minister and no one else. I put it to you that the Prime Minister in such a position would have knowledge within her grasp that no other Minister could be expected to have. Indeed there is only one Minister we can hold responsible and accountable in this House for the operation of that legislation. 
I make one other submission which is that this involves a matter of national security. Members of the Opposition have to accept in such matters that there are some things we cannot know. We do accept that and we try to behave with restraint in that regard. I put it to you Madam Speaker that there is a reciprocal obligation on the part of the Prime Minister in this case where there is information she can provide to be forthcoming and candid in providing it. Can I suggest that transferring the question is hardly consistent with such an approach. I invite you for all those reasons Madam Speaker to overrule the Prime Minister’s attempt to move this question to the Minister of Police.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3541] 
5.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Has the Government made any important advances in Treaty settlement negotiations recently? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Yes. Most recently last Friday the Crown signed an agreement in principle with the Ngati Whatua o Orakei Maori Trust Board. The agreement in principle covers Ngati Whatua o Orakei’s outstanding claims in central Auckland Waitakere North Shore and part of Manukau. The agreement in principle is a major milestone that will address historical grievances in the Auckland urban area. 
Dave Hereora 
: Is the Ngati Whatua o Orakei agreement in principle a one-off or is there a growing momentum in the Treaty settlements process? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: There is indeed a growing momentum in the settlement process. The recent Budget provided additional funding to the Office of Treaty Settlements allowing it to respond to the increasing number of groups ready to begin settlement negotiations. Currently the Government is in negotiations with over 20 groups covering hundreds of claims. In the very near future the Government will be seeking support for the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill the fourth settlement achieved in Taranaki. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he confirm that the Ngati Whatua proposed settlement includes the right of first option to purchase over 170 Government-owned properties with a value well in excess of $1 billion which will therefore mean that rather than being a $10 million settlement this is a settlement that over time will be worth hundreds of millions of dollars? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can confirm that as with many previous settlements—in fact most previous settlements—there is a right of first refusal on a range of Government properties. If and when any of those properties become available they will become available at the prevailing market price and therefore it represents a comparable but better protected arrangement than previous settlements. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the extra $5 million made available to his department for Treaty negotiations over the next 5 years after adjustment for inflation means he will have less money year by year than he had last year? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I cannot confirm that. I can confirm for the member as I did this morning that the Office of Treaty Settlements is currently recruiting an additional negotiating team to boost its ability to enter into direct negotiations with claimants.
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3539] 
3.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does he stand by his statement that he remains committed to providing grandparents raising grandchildren “with the sort of allowances provided to foster parents”; if so what actions have been taken to achieve this? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 In the 2005 Labour manifesto we said that we will “Extend the support provided for grandparents raising grandchildren and other carers on a pension in particular those taking on caring due to family breakdown to provide them with the sort of allowances provided to foster parents.” I am committed to delivering on this policy and I am pleased to inform the member and the House that this issue is under active consideration. 
Judy Turner 
: Will the Minister confirm that he is willing to work with United Future on future policy work regarding kinship carers in an effort to bring action to this area which has been overlooked for too long; if not why not; if so what areas does he consider the most pressing? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I can confirm that and I welcome the interest and involvement of the member in ongoing policy development in that regard. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister consider giving grandparents raising grandchildren any assistance with expenses such as the legal fees they may incur in gaining custody when a parent of their grandchildren can get legal aid to maintain the status quo; additional help for grandchildren with special needs; or consideration of the financial circumstances of grandparents who are raising more than one grandchild; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am certainly happy to look at those issues. I point out to the member that the current entitlements include family assistance the orphans benefit the unsupported child’s benefit and the foster care allowance as appropriate. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister explain whether the difficulties in closing the widening care gap are primarily financial or legislative and can he provide details of those difficulties? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No I do not have information before me that would enable me usefully to answer that question at this point.
Brash Don: Points of Order — Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Brash Don: Points of Order — Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:631;Page:3535] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Points of Order — Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Points of Order — Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:631;Page:3535] 
Wednesday 14 June 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Points of Order — Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Points of Order — Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:631;Page:3569] 
Points of Order 
Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to introduce the Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill forthwith. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly free to seek leave. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3671] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 47. 
Question agreed to. 
Bill read a second time.
Beyer Georgina: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3664] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise and take a call on the second reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). As chair of the Social Services Committee which considered the bill I would like to thank Judith Collins who has just resumed her seat in her role as deputy chair and also the other committee members. I also thank our committee staff and the advisers who helped us with this bill. The bill was expedited fairly quickly through the committee in terms of parliamentary process. The committee received the bill in December last year and closed submissions in February of this year. We heard 35 submissions and we spent several hours deliberating and considering the bill before reporting it back to the House today for its second reading. 
The main purpose of the bill is to increase the compliance of parents who fail to meet their child support responsibilities. That goal should be balanced against the need not to wring out of parents support liabilities they cannot afford to pay. The bill’s purpose is being achieved through a number of measures. The bill provides limited relief to parents who have fallen behind in their payments and have attracted penalty payments as a result. That is significant given that as at September 2005 of the $1012 million owed in outstanding child support $584 million were penalty payments for arrears. The goal is to encourage lapsed parents to re-enter the system without punitive action being taken against them. When lapsed parents enter an agreement with the Inland Revenue Department to make payment on their child support and penalties previously accrued penalties will be gradually written down at 6-monthly review points provided the parents keep to the agreement. Because not all penalties will be written off parents are still better off if they simply pay their child support on time and do not incur penalties in the first place. 
The Inland Revenue Department will also have a new power to administratively review child support levels if it believes that parents are structuring their finances in a way that deliberately lowers their income in order to avoid child support payments. 
I do hear the opposing view from Opposition members who disagree with the principle of writing off such a large amount of money. Of course they are entitled to share their opinion in this way and members of the House and the public will note the National Party’s minority view in the report that has come back from the select committee. 
By and large I think this legislation represents progress and will be helpful. I commend the bill to the House and hope it is expedited through its remaining stages.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3661] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government Law Reform Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3660] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Question not agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Local Government Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3657] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I will take a very short call as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee which dealt with the Local Government Law Reform Bill. The committee did well and I thank the select committee staff for shepherding us through what could have been quite a complex process. The select committee’s consideration of the bill could have been overtaken by highly emotional issues—but it was not. All this bill really does is look at the framework for local authorities and how they operate and reflect their recent decisions. The bill only clarifies things for local authorities and improves the effectiveness of their regulatory tools. 
All of the amendments in the bill came about because of the Government’s ongoing relationship and partnership with local government whereby local government meets central government on a regular basis and says: “Please help us. Give us the tools to fix the Local Government Act and get it up to speed.” So all of the positive aspects in this bill apart from the issue of microchipping dogs—which the entire select committee consideration of the bill was nearly swamped by—have been completely overlooked. 
In respect of microchipping I point out that 95 percent of dog attacks occur on the properties of registered dog owners so the attacks are not committed only by roving mongrel dogs. As Gordon Copeland mentioned microchipping has had stunning success in New South Wales and members of the committee were quite surprised when they realised New Zealand was one of the few countries in the world that does not have microchipping. I bring to the House’s attention the fact that when the Carolina Anderson attack occurred every member—every party—in this House poured up to get photos with Mr Anderson. Those members put their hands across their hearts and said they would do everything they could within their powers while they were in Parliament as elected members to stop the horrific dog attacks on people like Carolina Anderson. Microchipping is part of a comprehensive package that will complete the undertaking in the previous Act that every party voted for. 
We are pleased to be debating the bill. One really good reason we are keen to get the bill passed by July is that it will mean the Government has kept another promise—which the Government considers hugely important but which does not worry the Opposition at all—and that is the promise about rates rebates. From 1 July the rates rebate will be put up from $200 to $500—another promise kept by this Government. We are prepared to stay here and forego a select committee trip to Australia next week because we want to debate this bill and get it through the House. We will keep a promise to those 300000 people in New Zealand who are waiting for that rates rebate. I am looking forward to debating this bill clause by clause and I am sure we will realise then that there is far more substance to it than microchipping alone. Thank you.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3639] 
12.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What steps is the Government taking to support the development of the New Zealand biotechnology industry? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I am advised that biotechnology was worth $811 million to New Zealand in 2004-05 up from $475 million in 2002-03 and that the sector employs over 2400 people. Some of the highlights emerging from the biotechnology industry in recent months have included a possible treatment for Parkinson’s disease a possible treatment for diabetic heart failure and diagnostic tools to test for bladder cancer and to predict the risk of colon cancer. It is almost universally accepted that biotechnology will be an essential part of creating a dynamic knowledge-based economy. I am heartened by the warm welcome we have received around the country for the $1.2 million that our Government is providing in support of this vital and forward-looking industry. I also welcome the fact that there has been a total absence of criticism from members opposite which is something that I consider comes pretty close to support.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3632] 
8.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What initiatives are being taken aimed at further reducing the road toll? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 On Monday I announced a consultation programme See You There—Safe As which aims to seek the ideas of communities and stakeholders on ways of reducing the road toll that would have broad community support. The programme has a specific focus on the disproportionate risk faced by young and novice drivers. In order to make further substantive road safety gains we need to engage with communities and enlist community support. This is the start of an ongoing process of improving the dialogue between communities and those developing and deciding policy in these areas. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Can the Minister outline what progress this Government has already made in reducing the road toll? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. The road toll is coming down but we cannot afford to be complacent. Since 1999 the road toll has dropped by approximately 30 percent. In addition the number of deaths per 10000 vehicles now stands at 1.2 down from two in 1999 and is heading towards a target of 1.1 by 2010. But we have to do more. Our young people are at risk particularly those between the ages of 0 and 14. The greatest cause of death of children in New Zealand is road accidents. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister expect that by significantly increasing the funding for roading as the Government is at long last prepared to do the road toll will be further reduced? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I think it all helps not only in terms of road construction but also in terms of the road safety programme. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that the road toll would further decrease if greater use was made of coastal shipping to move freight; if so will she be supportive of implementing favourable measures to encourage the development of our shipping; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think we need to utilise all our transport routes to move freight around New Zealand: road rail and sea. I have not considered the proposal put forward by the member. He may have further ideas on it.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3630] 
6.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control 
: What is the Government’s response if any to the Million Faces petition delivered to him today by Amnesty International Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms which calls for New Zealand support for a draft arms trade treaty? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) 
: 
 I had the privilege this afternoon to receive that petition on the forecourt of Parliament together with the member and a number of other parliamentarians. The Government very much welcomes the petition which supports our view that there needs to be an international treaty to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. In fact we have spoken out publicly in support of that before at the UN and at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and we will again promote it at the First Review Conference of the UN Programme of Action for Small Arms and Light Weapons which starts in New York in about 10 days’ time. 
Dianne Yates 
: Why does the Government believe that taking action in this area is important and what evidence is there of the seriousness of the problem? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The evidence suggests that each year up to an estimated 400000 to 500000 people die as a result of small arms. Illicit trade into countries that are suffering from internal conflict is a key part of that problem. Kofi Annan has stated that in terms of the carnage small arms cause they could well be described as weapons of mass destruction. With the conflict situations that New Zealand soldiers are dealing with right now in Timor-Leste and in the Solomons I think that the importance we are placing on the issue of controls on the illicit trade in small arms is well justified. 
Dianne Yates 
: What would an arms trade treaty do? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The concept is at an early stage but it is a response to the fact that unlike weapons of mass destruction there is no treaty that governs the transfer of conventional weapons despite the widespread havoc they are causing. As a first step New Zealand is working with other Governments on a transfer control initiative for a discussion at the UN review conference. That will try to put in place a mechanism that allows States to screen legal transfers of small arms based on undesirable end-users. For example legal sales of arms to countries that were major abusers of human rights would not be allowed.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:631;Page:3621] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Social Services Committee to have the authority to make its final reports on Vote Housing and Vote Community and Voluntary Sector by Thursday 20 July 2006 notwithstanding Standing Order 330(2). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:631;Page:3621] 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Social Services Committee to have the authority to make its final reports on Vote Housing and Vote Community and Voluntary Sector by Thursday 20 July 2006 notwithstanding Standing Order 330(2). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:631;Page:3621] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I imagine that will be in the next mini-sitting of Parliament.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:631;Page:3621] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House can tell us when he expects the Maori Purposes Bill to be read for its first time.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:631;Page:3621] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Local Government Law Reform Bill the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill the Historic Places Amendment Bill and the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. The first item of business on Tuesday will be the 3-hour debate on the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill including the second reading of the Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill.