edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Guy Nathan: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Guy Nathan: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:2970] 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 The Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill which we are putting through the House this evening is an important bill. I appreciate the Hon Trevor Mallard’s comments before when he indicated that there is going to be wide-ranging support for this bill to go through the select committee process. I also acknowledge his indication that he would support an even shorter period for the select committee process. 
In essence this bill moves the Eden Park Trust Board from operating under the provisions the Act of 1955 through to where it needs to be in order to enable the redevelopment of the park for the Rugby World Cup to commence. When we look at that time line of 2011 we see just how close we are getting to it. So it is important that this bill gets through the House and into the select committee as quickly as possible. Judging by some of the speeches this evening there is wide-ranging support for this bill. 
When we think about the economic spin-offs that we will get from hosting the Rugby World Cup in 2011 we realise that it will be hugely significant. The figures that I have seen are that around $500 million of GDP will flow into our economy and several hundred million dollars of that will go into the Auckland economy which is fantastic. I was fortunate enough to go to the Rugby World Cup final in South Africa in 1995 where we made the final but unfortunately for us the All Blacks did not win. I recall the huge atmosphere in that ground with over 100000 people there. This bill will enable Eden Park to have a capacity of 60000 which is fantastic. That will be important for us when we showcase our prowess on the rugby field and what we have to offer as a country. 
This is an important bill and I am sure that it will get through this evening. I commend this bill to the House.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:2928] 
11.  
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What reports has he received on approval of investment in the national electricity grid? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I have received a report indicating that last Friday the Electricity Commission announced that it was approving the $473 million North Auckland and Northland project reversing its earlier decision to decline it. The project will involved installing 37 kilometres of 220 kilovolt underground cable from Pakuranga to Penrose and then through the central business district into Albany reducing the risk of events taking out electricity supply to the north of Auckland. The proviso of course is that the Electricity Commission has restricted the commissioning date to some years out: 2014. 
Jonathan Young 
: Why is the North Auckland and Northland project so important? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The major benefit of the project is that it provides an additional and separate line into North Auckland and Northland reducing the risk of disruption or blackouts north of the Auckland Harbour Bridge. Businesses and consumers in Auckland and North Auckland deserve to have secure electricity supply and this project will help ensure that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call question number 12. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was an extraordinary interjection across the House a few minutes ago from Mr Jones suggesting that what I have been talking about was Labour Party policy. I need to tell— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; the member will sit down.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:2926] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members because this is an interesting issue and I think it is a matter that relates very much to the good order of the House. Being able to table documents is an important part of the procedures of the House. Because there is some dispute about what the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings mean I will undertake to look at the issue very carefully and maybe give a considered ruling for the member. I must say that the Government can always table a paper in the House; there is a process that it has to go through to do that but it is not a process of just tabling a document. I will investigate the matter further because I can see that the member has quite a considered view based on a lot of experience. So I undertake to give a ruling on that.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:2925] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Over the last few years I think Ministers have probably fallen into the habit of asking for permission to table documents outside of the normal process of the tabling of papers. Clearly there is no restriction on Ministers tabling papers. There is a question about whether they are published; that is something that is a real and separate question. I can give you my assurance Mr Speaker that over the years Ministers have on many occasions tabled documents—I did it myself at least twice when I was a Minister—without seeking the leave of the House. There is a lot of precedent for it. It used to be more common than it is now but it is the right of the Government at any time to lay any document that it wants on the Table of the House. In this particular case although I probably should not be defending the rights of the current Government I think it is an important constitutional principle that at no stage could we get in the position that an individual member—one member—of this House could block the Government tabling a document. The House the country and the constitution could not work if that were the case.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:2925] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think from reading that Speaker’s ruling by Mr Hunt applying the logic to it that Mr Mallard wants to apply stretches the intention quite considerably. The ruling is explicit that it is up to Ministers to decide whether they wish to table a document. If they wish to table a document they still need the agreement of the House to do so otherwise the Standing Orders would allow Ministers to do pretty much what they want. That is not the intention.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:2925] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In order to assist you with your deliberations on my previous point of order this afternoon I draw to your attention Speaker’s ruling 140/4: “Except where there is a statutory obligation whether Ministers table documents is a matter for them to decide.” [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. The Hon Trevor Mallard is raising a perfectly serious point of order and we will have silence. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That Speaker’s ruling is by Mr Speaker Hunt and makes it clear that Ministers do not require the leave of the House; they have the right to table a document. They do not require the leave of the House in order to use that right.
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:2917] 
3.  
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What announcements has the Government made regarding building developments at Whangarei Hospital? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yesterday the Government announced approval for stage one of the redevelopment of Whangarei Hospital. This redevelopment involves a $25 million investment by the district health board to replace the existing acute mental health unit by constructing a purpose-built 25-bed facility. In addition stage one includes a new hospital kitchen and other infrastructural work that will allow for a more comprehensive future redevelopment of the Whangarei Hospital. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: Does the Minister accept that mental health buildings at Whangarei Hospital have reached an unsatisfactory condition and that much of the rest of the hospital is in need of improvement as well? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes there is no doubt that the acute mental health facilities at Whangarei Hospital need replacement. That is why the district health board and the Ministry of Health have given this project priority. I am advised that the current facility was built pre-1940 and was extended in 1992. To secure the best facilities outcome the Northland District Health Board has developed a stage-by-stage master plan that will enable it to look at the results of each stage and then inform and make changes to subsequent stages as necessary.
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 is testing my patience very severely. The member should not have such a short memory. He will recollect that during a previous term members could not even describe a document before their microphones were cut off and the House was expected to make a decision on the tabling of it. I have changed that procedure in the interests of all members so that members can make more sensible decisions about the documents being described. I have ruled on the matter; I believe that the procedure was complied with yesterday and that is the end of the matter.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
[Volume:654;Page:2914] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am inviting you to give a further ruling and in it to carefully consider the role of the Speaker in the protection of the House. The House is its own being and it is up to the House to make decisions based on the information that it is given. Mr Speaker I would like you to consider carefully and to come back with a further ruling as to whether it is the role of the Speaker to protect either the Government or the Opposition—and we have had two cases that you have gone to—or whether members are in fact able to make yes or no judgments based on what they are told by the members concerned.
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. For goodness’ sake as Speaker I have tried to give the House the opportunity to receive more information on documents where tabling is sought. I believe that is in the interests of the House. I have done it for the benefit of members so that they can make a judgment with the best available information. On this occasion the Minister sought leave to table a document that contained advice and the House gave permission for that document to be tabled. As far as that procedure is concerned that is the end of the matter because members knew what that document was—it was advice to do with the issues that had been covered by the Minister. I believe that was a fair representation of the document. All I am asking members to do is give a reasonable description of any document they seek leave to table. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. If the member is questioning my ruling I invite him to think about it.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
[Volume:654;Page:2914] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to elucidate on your ruling. Are you in fact setting a precedent for the House that for all future tabling of documents the date is required? If you are setting such a precedent I think it will be regarded as a very new ruling—
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
[Volume:654;Page:2913] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 This is a problem that has I think worsened in recent times. Unfortunately it appears that the area for the media is more restricted as a result of the change in the route of the Speaker’s parade. I wonder whether it might be possible for your parade to be re-routed through the Legislative Council Chamber or the Grand Hall and come into the Chamber the other way so that the public could still see the parade but it would not interfere with the very important holding to account of the Government by the fourth estate.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
[Volume:654;Page:2913] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise a matter with you that is of very serious concern—certainly to Government members—and that is the way in which the tiled area between the Beehive and Parliament House is becoming increasingly congested on sitting days as the media gather there in very large numbers. They appear to be somewhat constrained to one end and appear to have very little respect for the fact that the House actually starts sitting at 2 o’clock and that there is a requirement for Ministers to be given a clear passage to get to the House to answer questions on any given day. 
I wonder whether you might consider having a discussion—not a heavy-handed one but perhaps a gentle reminder—with those who run the press gallery that they might have some consideration for that particular activity of the media. In many cases if the media phoned up Ministers’ offices prior to that time they would get exactly what they want in plenty of time. There is no desire to avoid the media; it is just a very inconvenient time each day to approach Ministers.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:2973] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie)  
on behalf of  
Hon Murray McCully (National—East Coast Bays) 
: I seek leave to incorporate a date by which the Government Administration Committee must report the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill back to the House of Wednesday 29 July 2009. This earlier report-back date was not mentioned when moving the bill’s first reading and I seek leave to do so now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears to be none. Leave is granted. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I move  
That the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee 
 and that the committee report the bill back to the House by Wednesday 29 July 2009. 
Motion agreed to.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:2972] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: It was an honour to introduce the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill on behalf of the Hon Murray McCully. I rise to speak to summarise the benefits of the bill. As the Hon Trevor Mallard has already indicated it has multipartisan support across the House. The bill moves the governance and operations of the Eden Park Trust from a private sphere towards a more public governance arrangement. 
In 2007 the previous Government made a commitment to renovate Eden Park and the National Government has undertaken to continue that commitment. The purpose of the bill is to promote operate and develop Eden Park not just for the purposes of rugby and cricket but also for other recreational and sporting purposes as well as for musical and artistic purposes. The new arrangement that is proposed really is to the benefit not just of Aucklanders and not just of the people in Mount Albert but of all New Zealanders in terms of enjoying what is a very iconic piece of real estate in Auckland. 
I must acknowledge the role of the Auckland City Council—Mayor Banks and his council—in also working with central government to provide for the facilities around the park as we move towards one of the biggest events to be held in this country the Rugby World Cup. There is a lot of development in the Auckland City area. The development of this treasure of a stadium is really a gift that the new council which will be instituted next year will be presented with. The stadium should be completed by October 2010. 
This bill is the culmination of a lot of work that has been done behind the scenes by the Auckland Cricket Association the Auckland Rugby Football Union and the Crown as well as by the currently existing trust board. I also must acknowledge Ngati Whatua to whom the previous speaker Te Ururoa Flavell has just alluded and their role in shaping the future of the park. It will be an iconic place in our rich sporting history. I suppose that the question now is about how to get a rugby team and a cricket team that deserve to play on it week by week. 
But ancillary developments are occurring in the area. That will be very good for the Mt Albert electorate—of course there is a by-election going on there—and those developments will be particularly beneficial to the Kingsland and Sandringham shopping precincts. They should also complement the rail system that runs through Mount Albert to Eden Park and the developments that will occur there. 
This is a bill that all of the parties represented in this House support tonight. I am proud to speak in reply to the speakers who have contributed to the first reading of this bill. I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5519] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote State Owned Enterprises be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Vote State Owned Enterprises agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5514] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Justice be agreed to.  
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Vote Justice agreed to.
Blue Jackie: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5525] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I congratulate John Key and Tony Ryall on making a real difference to people’s lives. There is much I could talk about in Vote Health. I could talk about Labour’s legacy of the health of the district health boards and their projected deficits. I could talk about elective surgery under Labour which did not keep up with population growth. Or I could talk about the severe workforce crisis in the health sector with critical shortages of doctors nurses midwives and some specialists. I could also talk about National’s announcements in health and what we are doing in the eating disorders area. I could talk about how the Government has asked the Nursing Council to work with district health boards and the Ministry of Health to expand the training role of enrolled nurses in New Zealand which is one way that that very important group can play a stronger role in nursing care. 
Rather than that I will focus on National’s policy to fund 12 months of Herceptin. To briefly recap over the last term of Parliament the debate around Herceptin had a high profile. In early 2006 New Zealand was first out of the blocks becoming the first country to provisionally register 12 months as a treatment but then progress stalled. Although 12 months’ Herceptin treatment became the international standard of care with well over 30 countries funding it for their women Pharmac became focused on a Finnish trial that looked at only a very small number of women and a 9-week treatment regime. Subsequently in early 2007 Pharmac committed to the Synergy or Long Duration trial an international trial comparing 9 weeks with 12 months of Herceptin. Later in July that year 9 weeks became publicly funded. In mid-2007 eight women sought a High Court judicial review of Pharmac’s Herceptin decision with the result that in April 2008 the High Court directed Pharmac to consult again on its decision not to fund 12 months of Herceptin. Pharmac declined to change its decision. In October 2008 National announced its policy to fund 12 months of Herceptin. The decision was not made lightly. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Road User Charges Amendment Bill with amendment and progress on the Appropriation (2009/10) Estimates Bill. 
Report adopted.
Douglas Roger: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Douglas Roger: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5521] 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 This year 54c in every dollar of personal tax goes towards health care. The growth is scary. Two years ago only 41c in every dollar of personal tax was required to pay for health care. In other words in 2 years the figure has increased by 13c in the dollar of what we pay in personal tax. 
Saying that the figure is 54c in every dollar of personal tax can hide what it really means. Let me explain. Someone who earns the minimum wage pays about $2500 every year for health care. Someone who earns the average wage pays about $6000 every year for health care. People say that health care in this country is free. It is not free. To me it seems that health care has never been more expensive. Health care is not free; it costs each of us. When health care costs a person on the average wage $6000 every year one would hope that it would at least deliver. Yet it does not deliver and I want to know what the Minister intends to do about it. 
Despite the enormous cost of health care we ration it. Sick people are placed on a waiting list. While they are on the waiting list their health gets worse and in some cases they even die. The suffering that takes place while people are on waiting lists is rationalised away especially under a Labour Government and by the Greens in particular as if the goal of equality justifies denying health care to people who are in desperate need of it. 
The most pernicious effect of socialised medicine in this country is the creation of a group of second-class citizens. It does that firstly by having a bizarre mixture of subsidies; some things are fully subsidised and others are not subsidised at all. Secondly it allows pressure to be applied to the system in order to get treatments performed. For example if people can appear on television—on a programme like  
Holmes— 
no doubt they will get their treatment. But if people are not in a group that can bring special pressure to bear then they will suffer on the waiting list. The third way that we create second-class citizens is due to the fact that the wealthy can afford to pay twice via health insurance. So we have a situation in this country whereby the very people who miss out on health care are the very people whom universal health-care is supposed to help. While the poor die on the waiting list the rich and the influential get treatment. No one would seriously say that the system treats people equally. 
The solution offered to the problem by every party in this House other than ACT is the same. That solution is to throw more money at the problem. In 2 years we have increased the amount of money that goes into health care from 41c in every dollar we pay in personal tax to 54c in the dollar. Where will it be in another 2 years? Will it be 67c in the dollar? Is that really a system that is sustainable? Of course it is not. People say we can solve the problem by allocating more money but that is nothing more than snake oil.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5511] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Finance be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Vote Finance agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5499] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Tourism be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Vote Tourism agreed to.
Roy Eric: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5495] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The Standing Orders provide for 8 hours of debate in Committee on the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill. Each member may have no more than two speeches of 5 minutes on each vote. The estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. As each vote is reached a question will be put that the vote stand part. Should it be the wish of the Committee a question may be proposed on two or more of the related votes for the purpose of debating them together. At the conclusion of the 8 hours of debate any remaining votes and the remaining provisions of the bill will be put as one question. The Government indicates which votes are available for debate. I understand all votes are available and will be called in order of seniority of Ministers commencing with the Speaker’s votes. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the votes to be considered is available on the Table.
Joyce Steven: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Joyce Steven: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5491] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am taking a short call so I do not have enough time at this point to go into a great discussion with Carol Beaumont on the wider issues she raised but four words cover them: cost-effective and productivity improvement. They are not words familiar to that member of the Labour Party but I am sure we will have time on another day to discuss them. 
I will respond to the Hon Damien O’Connor in relation to his request. He obviously was on holiday earlier in the year when the Government announced when the expensive and administratively complex regional fuel taxes were being canned that there would indeed be a partially compensatory increase in petrol taxes and road-user charges on 1 October this year. That was announced around 16 March. It is 1.5c a litre of new increase alongside the 1.5c a litre previously scheduled by the previous Government and that will be taking place this year. As at 1 October 3c a litre has been scheduled and the idea of getting this bill passed is to ensure that the notice period can be given. Thank you Mr Chair. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 33 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Woodhouse Michael: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5490] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I will take a quick call on Part 2 of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill because try as I might I cannot resist talking about the Opposition’s attempts to rewrite history from last year. It is consistent with a theme that we have had basically since this Parliament started. But I am a bit disappointed in some of the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee complaining today and in the bill’s second reading that they did not have an opportunity to consider issues such as those raised by Mr Lees-Galloway. Yes the committee’s consideration time for the bill was tight but those members are no shrinking violets. They can speak up and they do. If they had those concerns then they would have raised them and I think there is a bit of wisdom now being shown after the fact. If that is all they can come up with to complain about in this legislation that is I think a credit to the fine Minister in the chair the Hon Steven Joyce. 
But despite the Minister’s considerable cerebral capacity it would not have taken much to come up with a very fair compromise arrangement to keep members of the road transport lobby satisfied that they are able to have sufficient notice to be able to put increases in road-user charges into their prices without arbitraging the system by taking millions of kilometres’ worth of charges in advance. Even if that was happening the Crown had the benefit of those payments with regard to the 2007 increases. The industry certainly did not get that opportunity on 30 June 2008 because absolutely no notice was given to it notwithstanding the undertaking given by the then Minister of Transport to do so. In fact Labour is rewriting history to quite reverse that. We are being asked to believe that members of the road transport industry came along and asked the then Minister to please do something different. She gave them notice in 2007 she said so she did not do so in 2008. I think that is a really big stretch. The road transport lobby protested last year because it was given an undertaking that something would happen and it did not. 
So I am really supportive of this particular part. I think it reflects a very common-sense response to the situation. Thank you.
Joyce Steven: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Joyce Steven: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5484] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call in response to a couple of questions raised by earlier speakers. The first question was raised by Mr Lees-Galloway about his constituents in Palmerston North. I am aware of the company he referred to Zero Emissions Vehicles and the work it is doing. It is encouraging and I hope the company succeeds with its project. Certainly we would look at potentially extending that sort of incentive approach once the vehicle becomes ready for use. 
In reference to Ms Moroney’s comments it is appropriate to point out that road-user charges are not paid by trains. Trains do not pay road-user charges and they do not pull up at the weigh stations and get weighed. Her comments were a little bit irrelevant if I may say so. In terms of passenger transport—I am a big enthusiast for its potential ability to reduce congestion in our major centres and I think that is the point—it has to have a priority for reducing congestion in our major centres that have the most congestion. Of course all funding involves choices between one project and another. I think the difficulty that the Waikato to Auckland train will find with the Transport Agency is simply that it will not reduce congestion on the Hamilton to Auckland road. I cannot see that happening. The route is already served by commercial private bus services that pay their way. Huge numbers of private vehicles travel up there and again they fully pay their way. So that I think is the difficulty with the project but we will see whether Hamilton City wants to make a contribution to KiwiRail. If it does I am sure KiwiRail will be very keen to see that happen but again it has to be done on a basis that makes some sort of sense when compared with other potential ways to invest in the transport sector. So those are the points I make in response to earlier speakers.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5478] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I rise to make quite a specific point and to request the Minister to respond to that point if he would. I am not a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee so I had not been closely following the progress of this bill until a matter was raised with me by an organisation in my constituency in Palmerston North. It is called Zero Emissions Vehicles. The Minister in the chair the Hon Steven Joyce nods his head. I do not know whether he has been in contact with this organisation but it is developing something that is quite a visionary idea that may be some time in the making—that is a heavy electric vehicle. The company is working on the components to create a chassis and base on which I suppose there could be a truck or bus—a heavy vehicle—completely run on electricity. The company has developed the battery and it is a long way down the road of developing the drive mechanism that could make this work. 
The company has raised a question with me about the 3.5 tonne limit for the road-user charge exemption whether any consideration was given to the possibility of a heavy electric vehicle or whether the concept of a heavy electric vehicle was even considered. Quite reasonably I think the company has raised the point that an exemption would assist it in having a selling point for such a vehicle if it were able to be developed—that councils might be interested in an electric tram or bus set-up within cities and that transport companies might be interested in the truck option as well. So having the exemption to the road-user charges would be advantageous in the uptake of such vehicles. The company has also made another very good point which is that given such a vehicle does not exist currently increasing the exemption beyond 3.5 tonnes would not cost the Government anything because there is no such vehicle. The Government would not be exempting anybody at the moment; hopefully further down the track that might happen. 
I acknowledge that I am raising this issue quite late in the piece; there is not a Supplementary Order Paper around it. Perhaps if there had been a little more consultation at the select committee these guys could have had the option to come along and make their submission but on their behalf I raise that with the Minister. I get the feeling from his body language that he gets the points and I will be very interested to see what response he has to that.
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5457] 
12.  
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Has she received any reports about the number of escapes from New Zealand prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes. I am pleased to advise that the number of escapes has fallen to an all-time low— 
Hon Members 
: Hear hear! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: —thank you—although any escape is one too many. The number of escapes in the 2008-09 financial year fell to 12 compared with 23 in the 2007-08 financial year. The 2008-09 result is especially pleasing when one notes the increase in prisoner numbers. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What work is under way to further reduce the escape rate? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: At my request the Department of Corrections has completed a comprehensive review of the eligibility of every prisoner to be employed on work parties outside the prison perimeter as those are the prisoners with the most opportunities to escape. Following the review a small number of prisoners have been brought back inside the wire. In addition the result of the re-evaluation of security classifications to ensure that escape risk is appropriately assessed and balanced is due next month. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports about the number of prison escapes? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. I have seen a press release in which the Hon Clayton Cosgrove claims that “this year prisoners have been taking off seemingly willy-nilly.” In fact of the 12 escapes in 2008-09 most occurred when his party was in Government. The member needs to get his facts straight before he issues shrill and misleading press releases. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is the Minister taking credit for this drop in prison escapes or is it an operational matter? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Actually I am very proud of the good work that the Department of Corrections has been doing and I did ask—[ 
Interruption 
]; if members would listen to the second part—for a comprehensive review of the security rating of prisoners working outside the prison. It has actually worked and I am very pleased that the Department of Corrections took up my suggestion.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5457] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We absolutely agree with your ruling that the Government can transfer a question right up to the last minute but I take up the invitation of the Leader of the House that this question could be held over until tomorrow to go to the Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia and be the 13th question set down for Thursday. If the Government is happy for that we accept the invitation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to hold this question over to the next sitting day. Is there any objection? There is no objection to that course of action. 
Question by leave postponed.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5456] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It would seem that we are at sixes and sevens all round in lots of ways— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Well you’re running the show. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No I mean the Opposition. The question as I understand was originally set down to the Associate Minister of Health. The expectation was that the Opposition might have asked for that question to be held over and the Government was perfectly happy to have it held over because Mrs Turia wants to answer the question. The Minister of Health was simply saying that if the Opposition wishes to ask the question as it has set it down he would be happy to answer. But I have indicated another course of action that it may like to pursue. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I need any further assistance on this matter. It is perfectly the right of the Government to transfer a question right up to the point at which the question is asked in response to the point of order raised by the Hon Rodney Hide. The Government indicated to me it is happy for the Minister to address the question to the Associate Minister of Health and I believe that is in order in the House.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5456] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt but on the Order Paper we actually have a question to the Minister of Health. I appreciate that it is up to the Government to decide who the question will be directed to but I would have thought and my understanding of the Standing Orders is that the decision needs to be made ahead of the printing of the questions sheet. That is all we have to rely on and if at the last minute a change can be made it disadvantages other parties.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5456] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 My question is to the Associate Minister of Health and asks— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe the question has been shifted to the Minister of Health and with the Minister answering on behalf on the Associate Minister. If the Government is happy with that—the Government has the final say on that—the honourable member may continue. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. My question is to the Associate Minister of Health and asks: has she received any evidence that point-of-sale tobacco advertising increases the likelihood that adolescents will start smoking?
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5455] 
10.  
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: What advice if any has she received on the effect of the changes made to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 on mothers raising their children and what has been the effect of this law on women? 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 None. But I am touched by the member’s sensitivity towards women’s issues which is in stark contrast to the constant calls from other members of his party for the abolition of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. 
John Boscawen 
: What then does the Minister say to the young mother who had two Child Youth and Family workers take her 10-year-old daughter away after the daughter made a false complaint that she had been smacked especially in light of the statement by National MP Pansy Wong in 2006 “I doubt that scratching the clause from law will act as a deterrent to those who use force against their child”? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: Of course I agree with the wise National MP Pansy Wong. In fact scratching that section alone will not completely stop the use of force against children. That is why I am very pleased that my colleague the Hon Simon Power in the first 100 days of the National-led Government introduced the Sentencing (Offences against Children) Amendment Bill which permitted violence against children to be taken into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing. 
John Boscawen 
: What if anything has caused her to change her mind on the anti-smacking law? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: We will be listening and listening very properly with full attention to the results of the referendum. I agree with the Prime Minister that if indeed there is a big No vote then Parliament would be better to have the backbone to change the legislation if it starts to fail people. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Has she received any representation from the Minister of Corrections the Hon Judith Collins to scrap the Ministry of Women’s Affairs? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before the member responds to that I say it is a fair stretch from the primary question. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not need to hear the member. I will allow the Hon Pansy Wong to answer. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: What a question! Unlike that member I am very appreciative of the 100 percent support that I enjoy from my National colleagues particularly my National women colleagues. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer a very specific question about a direct representation from the Minister of Corrections Judith Collins to scrap the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe I heard the Minister say in answer that she enjoyed the support of that Minister in respect of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. I cannot judge the nature of that support but I believe that is a reasonable answer to the question.
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5453] 
8.  
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: What recent international tax agreements has New Zealand entered into and what are the reasons for becoming signatories to these agreements? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 New Zealand has recently signed two new tax agreements. Last December we signed a protocol to substantially amend our double tax agreement with the United States of America and in June we signed a completely new double tax agreement with Australia. Both of these agreements represent a definite improvement over our existing treaties with those countries. They reduce tax barriers to investment by reducing withholding rates on dividends interest and royalties. They also bring our treaty arrangements up to date with modern treaty practice provide greater certainty for taxpayers and improve cooperation between tax authorities in the respective countries. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What further tax agreements has New Zealand entered into that provide more transparency around financial transactions and help combat tax evasion? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: In addition to the double tax agreements we have concluded a number of what are called Tax Information Exchange Agreements with key tax havens and other low-tax international finance centres. These include Bermuda; the Cook Islands whose agreement the Prime Minister signed recently; Guernsey whose agreement I signed recently; the Isle of Man; Jersey; and Netherlands Antilles. Agreements with the British Virgin Islands the Cayman Islands and Gibraltar will be signed next week. These Tax Information Exchange Agreements extend the ability of the Inland Revenue Department to request offshore tax records business books and accounts bank information ownership information and other tax-related information for the purpose of detecting and preventing tax avoidance and evasion by New Zealand residents.