edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2517] 
2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did he phone the Minister for ACC and discuss the matter of who should attend the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I had discussions with the Minister and that may have involved phone calls to the Minister’s office. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Very directly—did he call or not? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I had discussions with the Minister and that may have involved phone calls.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2517] 
1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Was he asked to phone the Minister for ACC to discuss the question of who should attend the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I had discussions with the Minister about his attendance. That may have involved some phone calls at the request of his office.
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2516] 
12.  
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Veterans’ Affairs 
: What reports if any has she received on veterans’ service-related health? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs) 
: 
 I am pleased to confirm the appointment of the expert panel on veterans’ health one of the commitments agreed to in the memorandum of understanding between the Crown the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association. The expert panel is an important step in improving the understanding of issues related to the service-related health of all veterans. 
John Hayes 
: How did the memorandum of understanding come about? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The memorandum of understanding was a direct result of the Health Committee’s inquiry into Viet Nam veterans’ exposure to defoliants. The then National Opposition worked with the Greens ACT United Future and New Zealand First to secure the inquiry. It was a great example of parties working together. I also say that once the inquiry was secured all members of the committee including the Labour members worked very hard to address the concerns of veterans. 
John Hayes 
: Did the previous Government exaggerate any part of the memorandum of understanding package? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What responsibility does the National Minister have for the previous Labour Government? She has none. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the honourable member to repeat his question and to be mindful of the Minister’s responsibilities. 
John Hayes 
: Since you have come into the House as Minister have you— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member asked a question and said “you”. I respectfully suggest that you Mr Speaker have no responsibility for that question at all and that that is out of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a very good point and I will give the member one further chance to ask a question that is in order. 
John Hayes 
: What reports has the Minister seen that might suggest there has been an exaggeration in elements of the memorandum of understanding package? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Unfortunately when the memorandum of understanding was announced in December 2006 the former Minister of Defence Phil Goff and his colleague Rick Barker implied that the package would deliver $30 million up front. They said “The package will deliver benefits close to $30 million.” and they did not correct the media when it was described as such. However the figure of $30 million was based primarily on an initial endowment of $7 million which was expected to be invested at 6 percent over 30 years. Unfortunately the current financial crisis and fall in interest rates could result in a fall in the funds available for distribution.
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2511] 
10.  
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What progress has the Government made in reviewing the Holidays Act? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to say that significant progress has been made under this Government. Draft terms of reference have been drawn up for a working party to review several areas of the legislation including the calculation of relevant daily pay the transfer of public holidays by agreement and giving workers the choice to trade their fourth week of leave for cash. 
Allan Peachey 
: Who will be involved in the working party that is reviewing the legislation? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The working party will feature both Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. I am incredibly pleased to work with both organisations on this and I can say that the level of cooperation from both has been fantastic. One of the first tasks the working party will undertake will be to determine who else needs to be consulted on the proposed changes. 
Allan Peachey 
: Why is the Government reviewing the holidays legislation? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: We are reviewing the legislation because it is not up to the job. It is causing significant issues for employees and businesses leading to unnecessary confusion and compliance costs. It is absolutely absurd that cases centred on the Holidays Act have had to go as high as the Supreme Court to be resolved. The previous Labour Government tried to address the issues in 2003 and failed; it tried again in 2004 and failed; and it did so again in 2008. We are just doing what should have been done years ago.
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2506] 
8.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What is the Government doing to help achieve its aim of settling all historic grievances by 2014? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 In 2 weeks the Government is holding a hui to discuss with iwi who are currently engaged in Treaty settlement negotiations or who are about to enter negotiations how the Government’s aim of settling historic grievances by 2014 can be achieved. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why is the Government holding the Te Kokiri Ngatahi hui? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Government is committed to resolving historic grievances in a just and durable manner because settlements protect and promote Maori interests and identity by helping to develop a strong economic base. In order to increase the momentum in Treaty settlements we have to look for ways in which we can achieve these settlements more quickly than we have done in the past. The Crown cannot make effective change unilaterally. The central North Island settlement shows how powerful creative cooperation can be in removing longstanding obstacles to progress. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What issues or proposals will be discussed with iwi at Te Kokiri Ngatahi? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Government believes that changes in the Crown-Maori relationship can help it to achieve the settlement of historic grievances by 2014. These changes focus primarily on a stronger role for Maori in determining the nature of settlements how settlements may be resolved and how settlements are to be carried out. Maori have clear ideas about what works and does not work in this area. This hui is an opportunity to have a dialogue with Maori on these issues.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2506] 
7.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Can he confirm that as Minister of Internal Affairs he has met all the requirements of a Minister of the Crown as set out under “Conduct public duty and personal interests” in Part 2 of the  
Cabinet Manual 
? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: In respect of his recent trip to India which passport did the Minister travel on: his ministerial passport or his personal passport? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I travelled on my diplomatic passport which in terms of the rules is correct. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The members’ colleague is seeking to ask a supplementary question. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What possible explanation might there therefore be for the Minister and his mates receiving ministerial facilitation to which he was not entitled from Ministerial Services from Auckland Airport or must the House conclude that because the Department of Internal Affairs is also the responsible department for Ministerial Services the Minister wrongly used his own influence to pull a few strings? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This provision has been in the  
Cabinet Manual 
 since 1984. Dr Worth has no responsibility for the  
Cabinet Manual 
. I think that it is ridiculous for these members who were Ministers just a few months ago to pretend they do not know what is in that manual. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is not alleging that the—[ 
Interruption 
] I ask members to desist; I am trying to deal with the point or order that the member has raised. I do not believe that the Hon Pete Hodgson is questioning the Minister in respect of the  
Cabinet Manual 
; rather he is questioning the Minister’s compliance with it. I invite the Hon Dr Richard Worth to answer the question. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: The current question is in connection with facilitation. The position there was that I was the only person who received facilitation in New Zealand. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Is the Minister satisfied that he has kept his Prime Minister abreast of all matters surrounding the appropriateness of the Minister’s behaviour since becoming a Minister or might he wish to make further private disclosures? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: To the best of my belief I have behaved to the highest standards and in accordance with the  
Cabinet Manual 
.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2505] 
6.  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What recent reports has he seen on agriculture and high country management? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Yesterday I received the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s excellent report entitled  
Change in the high country 
. This report takes a sensible and constructive approach to tenure review. It aligns with the Government’s election commitment to take a fresh approach to the issue while rejecting the previous Labour Government’s divisive and damaging work in this area. As such we will be carefully considering the recommendations made in the report. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How will this Government’s approach to tenure review differ from that of previous administrations? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: This Government will approach tenure review in a vastly different manner. We fundamentally believe that high country farming and conservation are not mutually exclusive and that the ongoing expansion of the Department of Conservation estate should not go on unquestioned. Clear instructions have already been given to relevant Government departments to implement a good-faith approach to tenure review negotiations and I am pleased to report that high country runholders are already reporting to me a marked improvement in the approach taken by officials on this issue. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What role does the Government see for farmers in the management and enhancement of our unique high country landscapes? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: This Government unlike the previous Labour Government is not interested in driving a wedge between high country farmers and the Crown. In many situations farming families can be more effective in delivering environmental outcomes for our unique high country landscape than any Government department can. That is why the National Government sees the high country runholders who have often farmed this land for generations playing a major role in managing and enhancing the high country for all New Zealanders.
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2495] 
2.  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What previously agreed State sector pay increases is the Government having to fund as part of the Budget this year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 There are a number of previously negotiated pay contracts in place which the Government will honour. Included in these contracts are those for 42500 teachers and principals who received a 4 percent increase in July 2008 to be followed by another 4 percent in July 2009; 22000 nurses and midwives who received another 4 percent increase in March 2009; 2800 senior doctors who received 4.5 percent in June 2008 and will receive another 4.5 percent in June 2009; 2400 junior doctors who will receive a 2 percent increase in July on top of 8.68 percent in August 2008; and there are many more of them. The contracts are all legally binding agreements made by the previous Government and they will be funded in this year’s Budget. 
Craig Foss 
: What has the Minister done to ensure future State Service pay agreements are fairer and more reasonable in the current economic environment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have indicated to the chief executives of Government departments that we expect State pay settlements to fall in line with what is happening in the rest of the economy in particular in the private sector where pay increases are quite low. We have also indicated to them that they will be funding remuneration increases from within the budgets they are given and that there will not be additional funds or ministerial funds to assist them. This will be the Government’s position for the foreseeable future. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Minister of Finance understand that this policy means that after 1 July school cleaners will be paid substantially more than support staff who work with kids with disabilities; if so does he think that is fair? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Fairness will be a critical part of the Government’s approach to State sector remuneration. The member should wait and see the bargaining parameters for that pay round before he gets too worried about it. 
Craig Foss 
: How does the Minister’s approach to State Service pay contribute to the Government’s objective of providing better smarter public services? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In a time of recession more New Zealanders will need more front-line services. In that environment it will simply not be feasible to continue to provide significant pay increases of the order of 3 to 5 percent for public servants without any benefits to productivity and more front-line service. Our focus will be on providing more public services.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:653;Page:2541] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We are very close to the 6 o’clock dinner break. I seek leave for the House to rise at this point and to resume again at 7.30. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. The House will resume at 7.30. 
Sitting suspended from 5.42 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Visitors — Maori King—Te Arikinui Tuheitia 
Visitors — Maori King—Te Arikinui Tuheitia 
[Volume:653;Page:2533] 
Visitors 
Maori King—Te Arikinui Tuheitia 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I interrupt this debate in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee for the Rt Hon Helen Clark to shortly make her valedictory statement. But first I have much pleasure in informing members that Kingi Tuheitia is within the precincts of this Chamber and I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Kingi Tuheitia entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Tabling of Documents — ACC Minister—Statements 
Tabling of Documents — ACC Minister—Statements 
[Volume:653;Page:2522] 
Tabling of Documents 
ACC Minister—Statements 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 During the course of question time today the Hon Trevor Mallard made claims of a statement about the New Zealand Press Association that resulted in the Speaker ruling that I had to answer as Minister an additional question. I seek the leave of the House to table the actual New Zealand Press Association report that Mr Mallard deliberately misquoted. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for the tabling of a report. Members are familiar with the report. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hayes John: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hayes John: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:2969] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise to support the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill. I commend the speaker who has just resumed his seat for his bipartisan approach to dealing with this legislation with my colleagues Murray McCully the promoter of the bill and Gerry Brownlee. The reason I support this bill is that it is of significant national importance—and it is for this reason as well that we have cross-party support—to change the 1955 Eden Park Trust Act to provide new governance arrangements that will help facilitate the holding of the 2011 World Cup and also I hope the 2015 World Cricket Cup. When the stadium is completed it will hold 60000 people. 
I would probably be one of the few people in this Chamber who in 1956 sat on the sideline in Eden Park with a bunch of schoolkids having been conveyed to Auckland by my father in his elderly car. I still have a vivid memory of Ron Jarden screaming down the touchline with the ball under his arm— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Which side? 
JOHN HAYES 
: The south side I think. He got a try right in on the corner and he missed my fingers by about 3 inches. This is probably before that member was born. I am saying that events like that set up lifetime memories and the 2011 Rugby World Cup will do that. 
Of course money is involved. This project will cost about $240 million and $190 million of that is coming from the Government. The Eden Park Trust Board is putting in another $12 million the New Zealand Rugby Union $10 million the ASB Community Trust $6.5 million and the regional council $10 million leaving $12 million unfunded. It seems like a lot of money but the economists are projecting that this will result in something like $475 million of direct cash spent beyond Auckland through the cup and another $262 million within Auckland. It will contribute about $1.5 billion to our GDP. 
This project is vital to our economy. As a substantially Wellington-based MP it is good to note that the stadium in Auckland will be twice the size of our “Cake Tin” but that the trust arrangements in Auckland will be based on the arrangements we have here for the Wellington stadium. 
It is essential that we make a favourable impression on the world community through both visual and written media and that we run a really good cup campaign. For those reasons I absolutely support this bill and I think it will give us a very good framework from which to move this country forward on the world stage. With those remarks I commend this bill to the House.
Mallard Trevor: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:2968] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I am sure it will not be necessary to take the full 5 minutes to speak on this bill. This is a bill that Labour is supportive of. We think it is good to send it off to the Government Administration Committee. We would be happy for it to have a relatively short report-back time. I think we are setting down a 3-month period for it. From my perspective if the select committee decided to have a shorter time—if it can handle it—then that is something I would be supportive of. I cannot imagine that there will be an enormous number of submissions. 
It is not a great secret that this measure is not my personal preferred solution for a sporting area in Auckland. But given that the stadium will be the premier stadium for the Auckland region for the next 30 to 50 years I think it is very important that we get the governance right. The bill looks as though it is heading in the right direction. I want to watch it carefully but I wish the promoter of the bill good speed with it so that we can make sure that these things are set up and simplified well before 2011. I think that if we can have the bill passed over the next 3 or 4 months then Parliament would be doing Auckland and sport generally a good turn.
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:2968] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand (Boscawen Garrett Hide)3; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand (Roy Douglas) 2; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:2928] 
10.  
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: Will the Government’s $1.5 billion election promise to deliver ultra-fast broadband fibre to 75 percent of New Zealand homes include the cost of taking fibre from the street into the home? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 The Government is committed to making the $1.5 billion investment in accelerating ultra-fast broadband to 75 percent of New Zealand homes alongside private co-investors. The exact methods of deployment the level of fibre backhaul required the level of acceptable overbuild the common technical standards and the level of consumer contribution will all be resolved as we move through this process that we have embarked upon. 
Clare Curran 
: When the Minister told the House last week that the Government’s goal was to provide availability of ultra-fast broadband did his definition of “availability” mean that families would have to bear costs of thousands of dollars to connect ultra-fast broadband to their homes? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: There will of course be an element of cost an element of service rental and an element of installation cost. The amounts will be commercial decisions but the local fibre companies and retailers will be acutely aware that the level of installation cost will greatly impact take-up. I point out to the member that nobody has ever said that ultra-fast broadband will be provided to 75 percent of New Zealand homes completely free of charge. 
Clare Curran 
: Does the Minister agree with John Key who promised to provide ultra-fast broadband to where people work live or study; if so is it not true that people live at home and not on the street that children study at schools and not on the street and that it is to homes and schools that ultra-fast broadband needs to be delivered and not the street? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: There were four questions there but I think the answer to all of them was yes. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is an opinion piece titled “Telcos universally challenged” dated 4 May by— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is that document from a newspaper? 
Clare Curran 
: It is published on the Stuff website. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A document published on the Stuff website? Leave is sought to table that. Is that any objection? There is. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table edition No. 46 of John Key’s newsletter entitled  
Key Notes 
 published 9 April. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:2927] 
9.  
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to improve education opportunities for teenage parents? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 This Government will be giving young parents who want to stay in education a childcare payment of up to $180 per week to help with childcare costs so that they can stay in education. 
Louise Upston 
: What programmes has the Minister seen that help young parents access education and create opportunities for them and their children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I visited a number of these programmes over many years most recently as the Minister. I can tell the member that supporting young parents to stay in education not only helps them but helps their children with their future. We are delighted to be able to continue a payment that was going to stop under Labour; we have now committed to keeping it. The reason that the payment is being announced now is that it is vitally important to those young parents so that they can make decisions about their education this year. 
Louise Upston 
: What is the Minister’s view on the timing of changes to the work-testing requirements of the domestic purposes benefit? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This Government is committed to helping sole parents into work. We intend to change the work-testing rules to incentivise those parents to get a part-time job when their youngest child turns 6. However I am committed to setting up domestic purposes beneficiaries to succeed so we will hold off on making the changes until the economic conditions change and there are jobs for those people to be getting those sorts of opportunities. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does the Minister agree with John Key’s statement that people on the domestic purposes benefit have been “breeding for a business”; if so will she require that the people he has so insultingly labelled undertake educational opportunities or be trained in another business? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I support the comment made by John Key that young parents should be supported to stay in education. He has had a hand in making sure that these childcare payments are available. He has visited teen parent units. He backs young parents and we certainly back him.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:2926] 
8.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What are her priorities for the period between now and 30 June 2009? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: The portfolio priority is to move New Zealand towards having a labour market that helps New Zealanders get jobs keep jobs and earn higher wages. One initiative is to provide greater flexibility and certainty and a review of the Holidays Act will be part of that process. The review will include the calculation of relevant daily pay and the question of whether to give workers the choice to trade their fourth week of annual leave for cash. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What is the relationship between those priorities and the ones set out in the Prime Minister’s letter to her? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am more than happy to ensure that those letters are tabled in order that the member may make some analysis on his own. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How does the Minister feel about getting a letter from the Prime Minister indicating that she has just over a month before a team he has selected will interview her in relation to her future as a Minister? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Whatever information the member has to suggest that is complete and utter rubbish. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What are the Minister’s priorities in relation to mediation services? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government is committed to ensuring that mediation services are adequately resourced and that the independence of the Mediation Service is maintained. The Government understands—and so will members opposite—that when relationships in the workplace break down even to the point of fisticuffs there can always be redemption. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have now finished my questions and I do not think there are any further supplementary questions. I ask that the Minister follow through and formalise his undertaking to table the letter from the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is at liberty to seek leave if he wishes to but if the Minister was not quoting from an official document there is no necessity to table it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Will the Minister fulfil the undertaking given on her behalf in the House today by Gerry Brownlee that she will table the letter to her from the Prime Minister outlining his expectations of her? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Minister will consult Mr Brownlee about this particular matter. But there would seem little point in tabling it as the member appears to have the letter anyway.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:2926] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The next question clearly goes to the personal priorities of the Minister of Labour in her portfolio and I would be happy to defer the question if the Government would prefer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to defer the question. Is there any objection? There is objection. The member will ask his question.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
[Volume:654;Page:2914] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I have ruled on this matter. If the member wants to go down that track I would advise that he does not do so because the Leader of the Opposition sought leave to table all the front pages of all the regional newspapers in Auckland. [ 
Interruption 
] There will not be interjections. He did not specify the dates. That was drawn to my attention and that is why these matters should be dealt with sensibly. The Minister of Finance sought leave to table the advice he had. He tabled that advice and as far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As long as the member is not questioning my ruling I will hear a point of order but I warn him that if he is questioning my ruling he will not have the opportunity to ask his question today.
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
[Volume:654;Page:2914] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for that advice. I want to contrast your ruling just now with the approach you took last week in respect of the Leader of the Opposition seeking leave to table an extract from community newspapers in Auckland when you were very very clear that the Leader of the Opposition would have to do that. You asked him to be very specific about what he was tabling and you made quite a point of saying he would have to comply. It seems as though the Minister of Finance—
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
[Volume:654;Page:2913] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I checked and watched the proceedings on the replay on television. As I saw the situation the Minister sought leave to table the document that he had that contained the advice. What advice might have been in that document is another matter; what the Minister might have said in answer to a question is another matter. The Minister sought leave to table a document; he tabled that document. As far as that process is concerned that is the end of the matter.
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
[Volume:654;Page:2913] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday during question time the Minister of Finance was granted leave to table information that he said was advice that he had complied with the State Sector Act with regard to the employment of purchase advisers by the Government. The document that was initially tabled made no reference at all to the State Sector Act. I have checked with the Table Office again today and the document that was initially tabled continues to be the only document that the Minister of Finance has made available. You gave an undertaking to look at the  
Hansard 
. I have had a chance to do that now. It is very clear that the Minister said that the Government had complied with the State Sector Act and that he would table advice to show that. The tabled document does not contain the words “State Sector Act” in any way.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
[Volume:654;Page:2913] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. The issue of free access to the Chamber for members is important. I will certainly draw to the attention of the appropriate people that members need unimpeded access to the Chamber.
Sio Su'a William: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sio Su'a William: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:2994] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I ask Mr Brownlee to please not allow that member to speak ever again. That speech was disappointing. I also say to Mr Bennett that it was disgraceful when he made the comments about flexibility of wages. How do we make that happen? How do we enable flexible wages to be paid? Do we pay workers $2 one day then $10 another day? How do we do it? And what happens to the bills that the workers have to pay? Do they get flexibility in their bills? 
National keeps on missing the point with regard to the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. The bill is about protecting vulnerable workers. It is not just about people who are delivering leaflets and pamphlets. If National members read Supplementary Order Paper 4 in the name of Darien Fenton and new schedule 2 in the substituted schedule on it they will see that it outlines all the vulnerable workers that this bill aims to protect. I will list some of them for National members’ benefit: building and construction services cleaning services courier services food catering services fast-food delivery services personal home-care support to an individual in the individual’s dwellinghouse public entertainment services the manufacture of clothing footwear or textiles telemarketing services market research services licensed security guard services services in the forestry industry and truck-driving services. The workers in those sectors are the ones that this bill aims to protect. It is an important bill but the members on the other side of the Chamber simply seem to miss that. 
Leaflet and newspaper delivery and pizza delivery used to be performed predominantly by young people who were trying to earn a few extra bucks but today families and older people are very often contracted to make those deliveries. In the difficult recessionary times we are now experiencing more and more families will be forced to supplement their incomes by doing exactly this kind of work. Without the protection of the minimum wage they are left with their own strength to negotiate whatever wage they can with their employers. Although working on a contractual arrangement works well for some workers for many workers that is not the case. I refer specifically to Pacific workers Maori workers youth workers migrant people workers who have a disability—whether it be physical emotional or otherwise—and women who have contracts to ensure that they have flexibility of hours so they can have the time to take care of their young children. They will also be affected and will not have protection unless this bill is passed. 
Those particular groups within our communities should be of concern to all of us. If we are concerned about their welfare then we can see that the protection this bill offers to vulnerable workers is crucial for maintaining their human dignity. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Bennett David: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bennett David: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:2992] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During this debate a few comments have been made with regard to support or lack of it for this bill in the past. I want to table a couple of documents to clarify what was actually going on with the support of this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a matter of order; that is a matter for debate. It has nothing to do with the process of this debate.
Henare Tau: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:2983] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair. 
Hon Member 
: Remember you used to support this stuff. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Not really and I just want to— 
Hon Member 
: You just did it for the money? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Basically it was a job. A job needed to be done and I pretty much did my job as my colleague and workmate Willie Jackson will attest to. But that is beside the point. I say to my cousin the member in the chair Darien Fenton who is my relation on the European side of my ancestry— 
Hon Member 
: Careful the list is slipping. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No no—it is just to say congratulations. 
I want to talk about the issue of the pamphlet deliveries where the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill will have a pretty big effect on workers. I know of a number of people who deliver these pamphlets as an extra on top of their weekly wage. They are on the minimum basic wage they are people who are on “Struggle Street” as my other cousin Shane Jones likes to call it and this income is a bit of a filler. My concern is that if this bill proceeds and is passed their employers most probably will find it unaffordable to continue the pamphlet deliveries. If we do not have those deliveries then that will affect the hundreds and hundreds of workers on “Struggle Street” who use pamphlet delivery as a bit of a filler for their weekly wage. 
It is lovely that someone can think of a really good idea and want to put it into practice but when we sit down and think about the bill and look at the nuts and bolts of it I am afraid we realise that the bill will not do what the member thinks it will do. All it will do is to just drive people away and drive people into a wee bit more despair. Those on “Struggle Street” those who use pamphlet delivery as a filler for their weekly wage will not have that income any more. I know it is only $20 $40 or $60 a week depending on how many pamphlets one drops off around any given suburb. But I am afraid that if we go down that track then how will my colleagues find out where the cheapest television is sold? We get flyers and pamphlets from places like the Warehouse and Dick Smith Electronics and we see people every week some of them around my home out on Te Atatu peninsula out there with their little buggy and out there with their kids dishing out the pamphlets. My fear is that you will drive away—not you Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am not going to drive anybody away. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No you would not do that because you drive a motorbike. 
My fear is that the intent of the bill will drive people away from employing workers on a contract for service basis. It is really important that we think about the ramifications of what the member is trying to do. As far as I am concerned the bill will drive people away and pamphlet delivery will become unaffordable. So even though the idea behind the bill is laudable I just do not believe that this bill is the way to up the wages of pamphlet deliverers.
Burns Brendon: Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill — First Reading 
Burns Brendon: Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:2982] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I thank members for their expressions of support for the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill 2009. I think it is an acknowledgment that we as parliamentarians can sometimes—indeed often—agree on legislation. Although it is not a major bill it provides a very very necessary mechanism for the Methodist Church. I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee chair Craig Foss for his comments. I acknowledge his comments that perhaps there may indeed be a case for a wider review of trust deeds. I am sure other organisations like the Methodist Church have trusts and entities that were established a long time ago for needs that have now passed. 
This bill recognises the fact that the days when a church like the Methodist Church provided for orphans and other children have largely passed. I note the comments from Green MP Kevin Hague that perhaps such days may return. Indeed history is often a repeat of cycles. But we as a Parliament cannot deny the Methodist Church the chance to update a collection of trust deeds some of which are decades old and the purposes of which are no longer there. Mr Tremain raised a valid point about how many trust deeds there are and how much money is involved. These are important questions that can be considered at the select committee and I undertake to provide that information to the committee. 
I know that in the meantime there will be considerable relief at Methodist churches across New Zealand that this bill is now introduced. Like similar legislation it has been a long time in gestation; the original bill was in the name of my good friend and predecessor in Christchurch Central Tim Barnett. The reason for its being in his name was more than as Jo Goodhew mentioned the fact that the Christchurch Methodist Mission does very good work in our city; in fact the Methodist Church of New Zealand is headquartered in Christchurch Central. 
The Methodist Church is a part of the New Zealand fabric. Since 1822 it has given care and support to those in need. This bill is a chance for Parliament to assist the Methodist Church to update its trust deeds without the expensive recourse that is required under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Cunliffe David: Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill — First Reading 
Cunliffe David: Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:2980] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call to commend the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill to the House and to acknowledge the member introducing this private bill Brendon Burns on behalf of the Methodist Church of New Zealand. Others have spoken in more detail about the contents of the bill and those contents will be reviewed by the select committee and at the stage of the Committee of the whole House. 
At a general level this bill serves to remind us of several important factors. Firstly we need to commend the Methodist Church and other churches that form part of the precedent for this bill for the work they do in our community. The New Zealand Labour Party strongly supports the work of New Zealand’s churches in helping the needy and the poor in New Zealand and we stand alongside those who offer essential services to our community—services that have been supported in very substantive programmes like the Pathways to Partnership funding programme introduced by the previous Government last year. 
I want also to stress that there is a long history a long antecedence for a bill like this between the New Zealand Labour Party and churches like the Methodist Church alongside Presbyterians Anglicans Catholics and others. That history goes to the heart and history of the labour movement and its partnership with Christian socialism and Christian social democracy. Both have the goal to build a more just and fairer society and to deliver services to those most in need. As a son of a vicar I guess that that resonates with me still and is one of the reasons why I am here in this House. 
To that extent I want to mention an argument that was raised by my colleague Kevin Hague in his contribution. The argument was in effect to caution the House against providing excessive reliance upon the charitable sector as a pretext for a withdrawal of the reach of the State in supporting those who need support in our society. I would say that that is a fair thing for the House to bear in mind but indeed it need not necessarily be so. It is possible for us to have an active conception of the role of the State in being able to play a positive and meaningful part in the lives of all New Zealanders who need it but in partnership with community organisations non-governmental organisations and churches. It is to that effect that I expect that my colleagues will want to support this bill through its deliberations in the House. 
The bill also of course offers the potential to save an expensive and time-consuming court process. This will ensure that more of the funds that have been given to the Methodist Church for the purpose of helping ordinary New Zealanders and particularly those orphan children in New Zealand will go to the purposes for which they were given and that has to be a good thing. Thank you.