edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5446] 
2.  
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How can employers organisations and groups access the recently announced Jobs Ops and Community Max schemes? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The calls have been flooding in. Groups of employers with entry-level employment or volunteering opportunities can call Work and Income and get young people into those roles really quickly. If they meet the simple criteria for Job Ops we can pay up to 50 percent of their wages for those 6-month opportunities. For Community Max we will pay the minimum wage for 30 hours a week to get projects done in people’s towns and communities. I encourage employers and community groups to give Work and Income a call on 0800 778008. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What kinds of employment opportunities are now available? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We have had calls from all over New Zealand and here are just a few: a dairy farm in Feilding a concrete company in Tauranga and a transport company in the South Island. We have even had employers who have called about Job Ops and who have gone on to list several other vacancies in their business with Work and Income. I am really pleased that employers are listing more vacancies with us realising the high calibre of people and broad skill set that Work and Income can provide. Recently we had a guy in his fifties at one of our Canterbury Work and Income branches who was looking for work and—I kid you not—within 10 minutes he had a job with a company down the road. 
Tim Macindoe 
: Can the Minister give the House an update on the level of interest in the programme? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: On day three of the youth opportunities package we have had a total of 130 phone calls to the employer line for Job Ops and Community Max and 10 registrations of interest from community groups about the Community Max programme. And we have 47 Job Ops positions ready to go on our books on just the third day. Young people are stepping up in their droves asking for those opportunities. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can the Minister give a guarantee that the two young people she said had already been placed into jobs—one as a factory worker and one as a cafe assistant—have been filled from totally new positions and not existing vacancies because according to the rules she put out at the weekend pre-existing vacancies are not eligible for Job Ops? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is my understanding that those employers called in on Monday with those jobs that they were matched on the Monday and people were placed in them and that on Tuesday they started the job. That is my understanding of how it happened.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:656;Page:5443] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Primary Production Committee to meet outside New Zealand with its counterparts in Australia from 10 to 14 August 2009 as part of the annual joint committee exchange with Australia. That is a resolution from the Business Committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:656;Page:5443] 
Wednesday 5 August 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of Select Committees 
Meetings 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Primary Production Committee to meet outside New Zealand with its counterparts in Australia from 10 to 14 August 2009 as part of the annual joint committee exchange with Australia. That is a resolution from the Business Committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1617] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister for ACC—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Hon Trevor Mallard if that was an implication of someone—I am not even going to repeat what he said. He will stand withdraw and apologise now. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1688] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to oppose the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. This bill started off by imposing the minimum wage on independent contractors. This bill absolutely confuses contract of service with contract for service. Independent contractors should be free to set their own terms for a contract. This bill will not work because we cannot set hourly rates for independent contractors. How will we define the hourly rates to be paid to painters or plumbers on a project and the hours they took to get the work done or to plan the work? How will we calculate their hours? I disagree with the view that independent contractors should be paid hourly rates because it is fair. What is fair is that independent contractors have the right to choose to become independent and enjoy their perks. They have the benefits of charging whatever rate they want and working for whatever time they choose. 
This is an awkward time for this bill to be passed. It is a difficult time for businesses. They are already struggling due to high costs. We need people to be employed. We do not want the unemployment rate to increase. If this bill is passed many of the independent workers will lose their jobs and be unable to work. Unemployment is on the increase. We need to help these people to retain their jobs. Being an independent contractor is a lifestyle of someone’s choice. I believe it is part of New Zealanders’ culture that people should have some option to bring in independent contractors without the Government interfering in their hourly rate. If contractors wanted to be paid a fixed rate or work fixed hours in order to get the benefits of employment they would choose to be employees. 
Independent contractors have competition in their pricing. Some put forward a low price because they want a job or are new to the industry. This is a business by choice. I believe that independent contractors should be left to make their own choice. 
To use an example in relation to the delivery of pamphlets I say it is ridiculous that a delivery boy should be paid an hourly rate. I remember my own kids used to deliver— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It is delivery man or delivery woman not delivery boy. Read the legislation. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI 
: Whatever it is I remember my children delivering papers. They started by taking 3 hours but when they finished they used to take only 1 hour and they got the same price as previously. I think there is an incentive if they are paid on that basis. 
I oppose this bill. Thank you.
Power Simon: Sittings of the House 
Power Simon: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:652;Page:1609] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following an agreement reached in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the sitting hours of the House to be 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Thursday 9 April 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:652;Page:1609] 
Wednesday 4 March 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Sittings of the House 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following an agreement reached in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the sitting hours of the House to be 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Thursday 9 April 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Cosgrove Clayton: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1691] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I have to say that Dr Nick Smith talking about depression is absolutely the pot calling the kettle black. This is the man who said in his speech “We do not regulate for wealth.” Well I ask Dr Smith that genius whom we know so well what a tax cut is by which anybody who earns under $40000 a year gets zip and anybody who earns above that including him and his wealthiest mates gets heaps. If it is not regulating for wealth— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh the politics of envy. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I waited for that. I waited for the old stewed prune to say that one. What is the politics of envy? When that member was in Government the minimum wage was raised by 86c in 9 years. What a generous member he was! Talk about the politics of envy! And he voted against every minimum wage increase Labour put through in 9 years. He talks about the politics of envy; I am talking about the politics of compassion. He talks about envy; I talk about compassion. One would think the cock sparrow that he is that because his Government after 18 years—9 of which his party was in Government and 9 of which it was in Opposition—raised the minimum wage by a paltry 50c he was the male version of Mother Teresa. I can say that as a Catholic! One would think he should be canonised in his own lifetime for the generosity in giving the workers 50c in 18 years. That was his legacy. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Henare Tau: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1681] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 When my father was working in the railway workshops in Otahuhu and in downtown Auckland it was not the National Government that laid him off; it was the Labour Government. Who was in the Labour Government back in those days? 
Hon Member 
: It closed the workshops. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is right. That Government closed the workshops and closed the freezing works. Members should not forget that in those days the State owned the railways—the State owned mostly everything in those days including Telecom. Who were the ones to get laid off first? Guess what? Working-class Maori workers were shown the door by the Labour Government. 
Now after being out of Government for 5 minutes Labour members are back on their high horse protecting the workers. For the last 9 years they have had this mantra: “The working class can you-know-what. I’ve got the boss’s job at last.” That was the mantra of the Labour Government for 9 long years. 
Phil Twyford 
: Who raised the minimum wage every year Tau? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely! I was just getting to that point. A new member has sounded out although it was not from his seat. 
The previous speaker said that people can make a living out of delivering pamphlets. I do not believe him one iota. Nobody makes a living out of delivering pamphlets. People subsidise their benefits and their income by delivering pamphlets. How do I know that? It is because somebody very close to me who is a second-year teacher for goodness’ sake also delivers pamphlets to subsidise his income. I say well done and I tell him I am absolutely proud of him because he is going out and earning that extra money. But to tell members that somebody can make a living out of delivering the Warehouse pamphlets—you have to be joking! I am sorry Mr Chair—I did what you warned us not to. I apologise. 
Let us look at something else. During the 9 years of the Labour Government the minimum wage increased by $5. Is that right? Well in 120 days it has gone up 50c! It has gone up 50c in only 120 days. Let us just think about what we could do in 9 years. 
I want to ask a question: why during 9 years of a Labour Government did this bill not hit the Table of this House? 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It did! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh sorry it did. Why did Labour not pick it up as a Government bill? I will answer that for members opposite. It is because they did not really believe in it. Who was the previous Prime Minister? Who was the previous Deputy Prime Minister? Everybody has forgotten. But the facts remain that after 9 long years— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Why isn’t this member a Minister? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I am not a jealous person unlike some people. I am happy being a list member for the National Party and that member should be happy as a list member too. In 9 long years there was not a whisper about this being a Government bill.
Barker Rick: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1681] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the next speaker I say that I have heard quite a string of interjections involving “you”. The Chair should not be brought into this debate. Let us be cautious about that. Members might want to reflect on that point. Members can say that a member may want to do this or do something else but they cannot say “you” as that refers to the Chair.
Sharples Pita: Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sharples Pita: Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1671] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. It would be a brave Aucklander who would go to the people of Ngati Maru to Ngati Paoa to Ngati Tamatera to Ngai Tai or to Waikato and tell them that in fact they are all Aucklanders. I am going to say right upfront that as the MP for Tamaki Makaurau I certainly am not about to head into the heart of King Country and start stamping around yet to all intents and purposes that is what we have been saying to the communities of Franklin. We have been saying to them all that it is their obligation to pay levies to support the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology. Fortunately because of this Franklin District Council (Contribution of Funding to Museums) Bill that will change. 
I say at the outset that the Maori Party’s decision to support this bill does not in any way represent any slight to either museum. They are both icons. The Auckland War Memorial Museum on the hill known as Pukekawa is part of the pride and joy of Tamaki Makaurau. Established back in 1852—not long after the Treaty—it has distinguished itself through its Maori artefact displays Pasifika collections major social and military history archives and natural history resources. It hosts millions of objects and it welcomes well over half a million people each year. Then there is the Museum of Transport and Technology which is an interactive museum with over 300000 items in its collection. It is a fantastic chronicle of transport technology and our social history for future generations to observe. So I have no questions about the quality of the resource that we have within these two museums. 
This bill is however a bill to aid and assist justice and fairness. And it is an excellent time to be talking about due access to justice on the day that we have announced that we will complete a ministerial review of the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act by July 2009. This is a day on which fairness once again has meaning. And so it is with this legislation. This legislation proposes to correct the legal anomaly in which all the residents of the Franklin District are required to pay a levy to support these two museums even those residents who fall outside the boundaries of the Auckland Regional Council. Today we start the process that will rectify this wrong—the wrong that residents living outside the Auckland region have been inappropriately rated for some years. As a result of this bill in the calculation of levies the new definition will now exclude any part of the district of the Franklin District Council that is not within the boundaries of the Auckland Regional Council. 
The Maori Party supports this bill. It is a fair bill a good bill.
Peachey Allan: Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peachey Allan: Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1668] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am delighted to be able to rise and commend to the House the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill. I will begin my remarks by paying tribute to my very fine colleague Dr Paul Hutchison the member of Parliament for Hunua. Dr Hutchison is the very finest kind of parliamentarian. He is highly respected in his community. He was returned to this House with a huge majority something that members opposite do not know very much about—being respected in one’s electorate and having a large majority. I suggest that rather than squawking from the wings they should reflect on why a parliamentarian like Dr Hutchison is so widely respected in his constituency—something those members know very little about. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to relevance. Although I commend Mr Peachey for paying tribute to his colleague in glowing terms the bill is not actually about him. Even the member for Hunua would agree that it is not actually about him. We are discussing the content of the bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I will ask the member to speak on the bill. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I will be very delighted to speak on the bill. 
This bill comes about because of faulty legislation the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 passed under the previous Labour Government. We all know that taxation in any form is not good. Double taxation is deplorable. A major injustice has been done to the residents of Franklin District—the ones who live outside the boundaries of the Auckland region—in that they have had to pay twice. That is not right. It is important that this House gives its most urgent attention to correcting that situation. That is what Dr Hutchison is doing tonight with our support. 
It is pleasing to hear the Labour Party will support this bill. It is good to see people tidying up after their mistakes. It is good to see the Labour Party which has been so bent on “tax and spend” at least show a little acknowledgment that double taxation of the type that the residents of Franklin District have been subjected to is not right and needs to be corrected. Mr Deputy Speaker I noted with interest your patience at the irrelevance of the first Labour speaker’s speech. He is obviously a new member in the House but he seemed to be totally preoccupied with Auckland regional governance and not with the issues in the bill. It is not acceptable to want to use the royal commission in Auckland or the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act to delay slow up or frustrate the efforts of this House to bring justice and fairness to the people of Franklin District. Thank you.
Tisch Lindsay: Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1668] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that clarification. The remaining speeches are of 5 minutes. I will ring the bell when there is 1 minute remaining.
Hughes Darren: Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1668] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your indulgence just to clarify a procedural point. I heard the member who is in charge of the bill Dr Hutchison say that there had been a suggestion from the Labour Party that the bill would go through its first second and third readings tonight. I want to clarify to the House the private conversation I had with Dr Hutchison. I said that following the bill’s first reading tonight and referral to a select committee it might be possible to work with the Business Committee to take the remaining stages as one question. I clarified that point with the chief Government whip this morning but I was concerned to hear on the radio that Dr Hutchison had implied that I said the bill would go through in one stage tonight with no select committee process. That is not the consensual offer I was trying to make to him and I am a bit disappointed that he reported it to the House in that way.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1664] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1627] 
12.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did he discuss with the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd New Zealand’s aid programmes in the Pacific? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the Prime Minister then explain to Kevin Rudd how changing NZAID’s goal of poverty elimination and its structure as a separate organisation as Mr McCully advocates would help improve coherence between Australia and New Zealand’s development programmes in the Pacific when AusAID is set up with the goal of the elimination of poverty and a separate structure? How would it help coherence to change New Zealand’s model away from Australia’s model? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister did not discuss the details of internal Government discussions and I am sure Mr Rudd would accept that it is up to us to decide that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does he share the view of Mr McCully that NZAID is akin to throwing $100 notes out of a helicopter door and calling it poverty elimination; if so how does that square with consistent reports from the OECD’s respected Development Assistance Committee which rates New Zealand’s development assistance strategy and programmes as amongst the best-focused and best-delivered in the world? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Mr McCully did not actually say what the member alleges. However successful NZAID is regarded to be there is always the opportunity to improve. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table a statement in quote marks in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 in which Murray McCully says that NZAID is akin to throwing $100 notes out of a helicopter— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that press statement. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Phil Twyford 
: Is it to be his Government’s practice that it acts before seeing the facts as in the case of the Minister of Foreign Affairs who has ordered two reviews of NZAID’s mandate and structure while telling the  
New Zealand Herald  
that he has already made up his mind to change its focus from poverty elimination to economic development? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Minister of Foreign Affairs is highly motivated to ensure that New Zealand’s aid is effective and he is pursuing a course that ensures all the issues will be debated. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the editorial in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
that “Government tampering” serves only to debase overseas aid; if so will he intervene to ensure that his Minister does not meddle in the aid programme for political ends? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Several hundred million dollars of taxpayers’ money is spent through the aid budget and any Minister of an incoming Government has the right to scrutinise it particularly given that most of the other programmes we have been scrutinising have been found to be either in a shambolic state or badly administered.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1627] 
11.  
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What reports has he received about addressing serious antisocial behaviour by tenants living in Housing New Zealand Corporation properties? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I have received notice that the Housing New Zealand Corporation has served 90-day notices on five of its tenants in response to ongoing and serious incidents in Farmer Crescent. The Government supports the corporation getting serious about antisocial violent and intimidating behaviour. We do not tolerate houses being used for unlawful purposes. The previous Government turned a blind eye to gangs in State houses. The gangs have set up shop and we are doing something about it. 
Tim Macindoe 
: Why are 90-day notices being used instead of taking action through the Tenancy Tribunal? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The Housing New Zealand Corporation will still use the Tenancy Tribunal for the vast majority of tenancy issues but where there are ongoing serious issues of a violent and intimidatory nature—and there is a small number of these—the local community deserves a rapid and definitive outcome. We cannot expect witnesses to give testimony at the Tenancy Tribunal in front of people they have been severely intimated by and often live next door to. We are spending a fortune on upgrading a dilapidated State housing stock which the Labour Government oversaw and we are not going to have those doors kicked in and neighbours intimidated. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What safeguards are in place to ensure that 90-day notices are not used out of context? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The decision to issue a 90-day notice will not be taken lightly by the Housing New Zealand Corporation. It has assured me that it will be a last option. The 90-day notices will be processed centrally and the decision to issue one is made at a high level of the organisation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Tell us about the nine kids and where they’re going to live. Where are the children going to live Phil? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Trevor Mallard who also shows intimidating and violent behaviour might like to take note that 90-day notices will not be used inappropriately. I wish the Speaker would use one on him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister must not bring me into his answer. He should not attack other members of the House personally like that. I note the member interjected on him but that is no excuse for a personal attack. I ask the member to stand withdraw and apologise for bringing me into his answer. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I withdraw and apologise to you and to the Hon Trevor Mallard.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1626] 
10.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she agree with Prime Minister John Key’s statement on 9 February 2009 that “no raise at all in the minimum wage would have left the lowest-paid most vulnerable workers with no increase to offset the costs”; if so why? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes; because the statement is correct. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will the Government be supporting the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill that will give thousands of the lowest-paid most vulnerable workers an increase to offset their costs; if not why not? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: No we will not be supporting that bill. Of course we stand by workers in ensuring that they are treated fairly but this bill was rejected at select committee level. It would cause substantial problems through its practical effects and we will be voting against it. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Has the Minister seen any reports regarding the minimum wage? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes I have seen a report from the Labour Party election manifesto that says that economic circumstances prevented it from committing to a $15 minimum wage. I have also seen a member’s bill in the name of Darien Fenton that demands a $15 minimum wage. I ask what secret economic improvements the member is aware of in the last 4 months that make committing to a $15 minimum wage a responsible course of action. 
Darien Fenton 
: Can she explain to New Zealanders exactly why she does not think every Kiwi worker should get paid at least the minimum wage and will not be entitled even to the measly $3.78-a-week increase that the Government gave to minimum-wage workers? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: We will not be supporting the member’s bill for the reasons I have given. It is uncertain it will add costs it is not a practical bill and it also takes away choice for people such as entertainers. Would you like Dame Kiri Te Kanawa to be on the minimum wage? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to make it clear the Minister should not address you in her answers as she did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member.
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1625] 
9.  
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received in relation to the delivery of surgical first specialist assessments and what do the reports show? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have received a report from the Ministry of Health that details the failure of the previous Government to maintain real access to elective surgery. The report specifically advises on the delivery of surgical first specialist assessments from 2000 to 2007-08. Over that period the population of New Zealand rose by 9.6 percent; the number of New Zealanders getting a surgical first specialist assessment rose by 0.7 percent or 0.1 percent a year. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Why are surgical first specialist assessments so important? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Surgical first specialist assessments are important predominantly because they are the gateway to an elective operation. Sadly despite doubling the health budget capacity in the public health system has not kept up with population growth—let alone ageing. Many of the thousands of New Zealanders for whom there has not been capacity were placed in the care of their general practitioner. For others their specialist appointment may result in an alternative course of treatment appropriate care or peace of mind. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What would the number of surgical first specialist assessments need to have risen by in order to match population growth? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The number of surgical first specialist assessments in 2001 was 251000. With a population growth of 9.6 percent to 2008 it is reasonable to estimate that there should have been an increase of over 24000 such appointments to even try to keep up with population growth. In actual fact the growth was only 0.1 percent a year despite doubling the public health budget. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Why did the Minister fail to take the action required to remove tobacco displays from convenience stores when any steps to reduce the uptake of smoking would reduce cancer rates and free up resources for surgical first specialist assessments? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government made it clear in quoting from the report of the Health Committee—unanimously agreed on by all members—that there is no international evidence that shows a clear link between banning tobacco displays and reducing smoking rates. On the issue of surgical first specialist assessments I suspect that a lot more could have been achieved if the previous Government had not cut the budget for health just before the last election. Labour cut $50 million out of the health budget for next year and $100 million out of the health budget for 2010-11.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1625] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I am very reluctant to do this but I seek leave to table a press clipping. It is from the  
Malay Mail 
 which is probably not a newspaper that has general readership in the House and it is headlined “Readymade train wreck”. It is about locomotives from the same source as the ones the Government has ordered and it makes it clear that only five out of the 20 are still going 5 years later. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1624] 
8.  
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is she committed to pay parity in the education sector? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Ministry of Education is about to begin negotiations for collective agreements where this matter will be considered along with other employment conditions. Given that these negotiations are due to start soon and that the parameters are still being considered it would be improper for me to comment on employment issues of this nature. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Is the Minister intending to review pay parity in the education sector; if so has she received or requested any advice on the matter? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have received advice on a number of issues. But that member who used to be the Minister of Education—and I know that it was a long time ago and that every day seems like a year—should know that it is improper to discuss these types of employment matters through this forum and that they are better discussed around the bargaining table between the Ministry of Education and the bargaining agents. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Can the Minister tell the House when her Government will begin negotiations with the New Zealand Educational Institute on the kindergarten teachers’ collective agreement as the current agreement expired a week ago? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Soon. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: If the Minister is not committed to pay parity could she tell the House why she thinks a secondary teacher does a better job than a primary teacher? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: That member may think it is a good idea to discuss these complex issues in question time but I want the Ministry of Education to discuss them in good faith around a negotiating table. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I made it quite clear in my question that it was not about whether a current negotiation is taking place. I clearly asked the Minister whether she believes in pay parity; she still has not given an answer to that. I also asked her whether she agrees that primary teachers do as good a job as secondary teachers—or kindergarten teachers for that matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has just pointed out that he asked several things in his supplementary question. The Minister has made it clear that prior to a negotiation round she considers it not in the public interest to be specific about such issues as pay parity which clearly are issues that will be handled in a payment negotiation. 
Rahui Katene 
: What action will the Minister take to raise the pay rates for low-paid school staff including teacher-aides librarians school managers information and communications technology specialists therapists kaiarahi reo cleaners and school caretakers? Those staff often provide the glue to keep a school together. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The collective agreements that that member refers to are due to begin negotiations soon. Therefore it would be most inappropriate for me to discuss that matter here in the House.
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1624] 
7.  
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What measures has the Government recently taken to lift the performance of KiwiRail? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 We are moving to be much clearer with the KiwiRail board that this Government expects answers to questions like: “What is the $130 million of subsidy being spent on?”. At the same time we have decided to invest in propositions put forward by that board that we believe make sense such as the spending of $39.9 million on 17 new passenger carriages for the Tranz Scenic route and $75 million for 20 new locomotives. We believe that this will help to lift KiwiRail’s performance on two key tourist routes as well as its freight business. 
Amy Adams 
: What rail spending commitments did the previous Government make? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well to define them as commitments is to somewhat dignify a stream of press releases issued during election year. It turns out that those press releases add up to commitments of about $3 billion but not many people in the rail system have been able to tell us what they are for and what difference they will make. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When considering the performance of KiwiRail does the Minister believe that the Government will be a majority shareholder in KiwiRail in 5 years’ time when the recession that he calls the worst in 90 years is over? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is the owner of a business now that probably has no value in fact has negative value having just 8 months ago paid almost a billion dollars for it. We will have to keep this business and try to make it work because no one in his or her right mind would be willing to pay anything like what the taxpayer has put into it. 
Amy Adams 
: On what basis was the new spending approved? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have changed quite significantly the approach of Government to deciding these investments. Instead of issuing press releases in the hope that some day the money will show up to back them we have decided to upgrade rail infrastructure where there is clear evidence that it will improve service and provide a decent return on taxpayers’ money.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:4145] 
11.  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: What did Budget 2009 deliver for fisheries management in New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 Budget 2009 has delivered for fisheries particularly in the resourcing for front-line fisheries officers. Budget 2009 will see more fisheries officers patrolling New Zealand’s coastline. It fulfils National’s pre-election promise of ensuring that any resourcing that was not spent on improving fish stock health and fish stock management would be shifted to areas that did improve those. Policing was one of my concerns while I was in Opposition and I am very pleased to be able to deliver it as the Minister. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How many more fisheries officers and honorary fisheries officers will come on board? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: There is to be a large increase from 172 to 250 in the number of front-line honorary fisheries officers over the next 4 years. In terms of full-time paid fisheries officers they will also increase from 95 to 104. In this Budget we have reversed the slashing of the number of fisheries officers. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What else in the Budget did we promise at the election? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: In the Budget we have put much more resources into recreational fishing research. First of all we are putting resources into a new catch reporting system for charter boat operators. Additionally I was keen to see more research being undertaken in the recreational fisheries area and funding has been set aside to do that. We have an amazing recreational fishery. We are very fortunate to have it in New Zealand and getting data on what has been caught and where it was caught is vital to making it even better.
Douglas Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Douglas Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:4143] 
9.  
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is he comfortable that Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is set to rise from 31.8 percent in the 2007-08 financial year to 37.3 percent in the 2009-10 financial year; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The figures do show a considerable rise in Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP a fact that might be noted by the Labour Opposition and by the  
Dominion Post 
 which labelled our Budget as “Slash and Burn”. The increase in the percentage of GDP is somewhat exaggerated both by the decline in GDP and by the fact that the Working for Families package and the KiwiSaver initiatives are classified as expenditures rather than tax reductions. Even so core Crown expenditure will have increased by 45 percent in the 5 years to June 2010 and the Budget signalled clearly that on behalf of the taxpayer this Government is setting out to get control of what was reckless growth in Government expenditure. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: In what way will the budgeted increase of $450 million for heritage culture and recreation do more to kick-start the economy than promised tax cuts worth the same amount especially when over the last 2 years we have seen a transfer from the private sector to the public sector worth around $10 billion? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Every Minister and every chief executive should be asking himself or herself exactly that question—that is what they are effectively going to deliver from their increased funding. The Government has signalled clearly that in the time it has had available as a new Government it has made considerable savings by tying up the loose ends left by the previous Government. And we have signalled that over the next few years Budget increases will be zero or minimal and that means people will need to find answers to those questions. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Can the Minister explain how the extra $450 million for the heritage culture and recreation budget will create more jobs than tax cuts worth the equivalent amount and is it not true that the Government’s extra borrowing to finance that expenditure is backed by nothing more substantial than thin air? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I agree with the member that because the Government is borrowing billions of dollars over the next 3 or 4 years—in fact almost doubling public debt—it needs to ask hard questions about every dollar of public expenditure. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What about the answers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well that is a bit rich coming from the Opposition which criticises every answer that is given. The public of New Zealand understands that those questions should be asked. I think the Public Service is starting to understand that those questions should be asked. The only people who believe that the questions should not be asked are those in the Labour Opposition and that is why the public does not support them.
Tremain Chris: Budget Debate 
Tremain Chris: Budget Debate 
[Volume:654;Page:4184] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have made good progress with the Budget debate this evening and I seek leave for the House to rise early for the 6 p.m. dinner break to return at 7.30 p.m. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:4142] 
8.  
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by earlier claims that the engagement of ministerial purchase advisers complied with all Public Service requirements for the contracting of staff and that the purchase advisers are covered by the  
Public Service Code of Conduct 
? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. The engagement of purchase advisers did comply with all Public Service requirements for the contracting of staff. I am advised that as they were independent contractors though they were not covered by the  
Public Service Code of Conduct 
; none of the independent contractors employed by the Public Service of whom I understand there are hundreds are. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Why did the Minister insist that the cost of the purchase advisers be met by individual departments rather than be funded through Ministerial Services as recommended by both Treasury and the State Services Commission? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I asked Treasury and the State Services Commission to come up with satisfactory arrangements for chief executives to employ these purchase advisers. I must say that for a group of half a dozen experienced publicly minded people who on average are earning much less than $40000 for 6 months’ work the whole exercise has been extremely successful. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Does the Minister agree with the advice provided by the State Services Commission that “If the role of this group is to service Ministers’ offices it would seem proper that they sit within Ministerial Services; Ministerial Services is set up for this function and would provide a transparent process.”; if not why not? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Because he doesn’t like transparency. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can tell the former Minister that there was discussion between the State Services Commission and Treasury and that everyone was satisfied with the arrangements. The Government is particularly satisfied with the fact that although under Labour political hacks spent all their time wasting taxpayers’ money these advisers have helped Ministers to save $2 billion of taxpayers’ money. 
Chris Hipkins 
: What confidence can the public of New Zealand have that the Government is sticking to its pre-election commitment to protect the political neutrality of the Public Service when it has foisted people hand-picked for their political views such as ACT candidate Graham Scott on to the books of Government departments at the same time as it is sacking legitimate public servants? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That member would know what it is like to be hand-picked for his political views and to be paid thousands of dollars—probably hundreds of thousands of dollars—by taxpayers for being a political hack. These advisers have acknowledged high levels of Public Service expertise and they have assisted the Government in saving $2 billion of taxpayers’ money.
Mahuta Nanaia: Maori Trustee Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Maori Trustee Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2775] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I am not sure whether I made the point as clearly as it could have been made but for the benefit of the previous speaker I say the point was not so much about whom to delegate to. The point was that within the way that the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill is written the process for terminating or suspending the employment of the Maori Trustee is that it has to be in writing between the Minister and the Maori Trustee. The process by which delegated authority occurs is by written delegation. The issue I was raising if the member was at all interested in the point I raised was that there could potentially be a time lapse. A meeting with the Minister to inform the Maori Trustee that some issues may have arisen or been brought to the Minister’s attention and that therefore a suspension is impending has to be followed through by a written letter. And it may be for practical reasons—or in the court of public opinion things have to happen sooner rather than later—that the Maori Trustee has not written formally greater delegations than those already held by the deputy trustee. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill without amendment and progress on the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted.