edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19507] 
3. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National)  
on behalf of  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What initiatives have been undertaken to tackle rheumatic fever in New Zealand? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In this year’s Budget Mrs Turia announced that we are investing $12 million over 4 years to reduce rheumatic fever in vulnerable communities around the nation. This will involve up to 22000 children in high-risk areas. Prevention programmes focused on this Third World disease are already under way in a number of vulnerable communities. In Flaxmere for example there have been no more cases since its programme began last year and at the recent programme launch at Makaurau Marae in South Auckland it was announced that it will be the first place in New Zealand where children can turn up without an appointment and be tested and diagnosed within minutes in a new rapid diagnosis test. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How long has tackling rheumatic fever been a Government priority? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The previous Government boasted in 2001 that rheumatic fever was a priority but nothing happened except that more kids got it. This Government takes rheumatic fever seriously. A sore throat can lead to permanent and quite serious heart damage and it is crucial that we tackle this preventable disease head-on. Continuing and contributing to our other prevention work in this area is the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart programme whereby 100000 homes were retrofitted as of 1 March this year. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister accept that overcrowded housing is one of the main issues with rheumatic fever in New Zealand and how does the Government cutting funding for State housing help that? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: What I can advise is when it comes to housing as a contributing factor certainly the temperature of houses has been found to be a contributing factor and that is one of the reasons why we have the Heat Smart campaign. On the issue of overcrowding I think the Minister of Housing has done a superb job in the work he has done in tidying up the very poor state of public housing that he inherited from that failed party opposite. 
Rahui Katene 
: Is he aware of the particularly high rates of rheumatic fever in Northland and what response has he received from people in Northland to the announcement by Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia of the $12 million invested in eliminating rheumatic fever in high-risk areas? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes. I am aware of two particularly positive responses to the announcement by Minister Turia. Both are from Northland general practitioners who say they are delighted by the $12 million boost and that Mrs Turia should take a bow for championing the cause for more resources. As the member knows Northland is one of our most vulnerable and high-risk areas in terms of this particular issue and the new funding will provide a much needed boost in their fight against rheumatic fever and complement the work that is already under way.
Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill — Third Reading 
Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19567] 
Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill be now read a third time 
.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19583] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Clare Curran to clause 24 be agreed to: 
to omit section 156AD(2) and substitute the following subsection: 
“(2)The undertaking must— 
“(a)be executed by the service provider LFC; and 
“(ab)provide for the LFC to supply unbundled layer 1 services on all parts of its fibre-to-the-premises access network from the outset; and 
“(b)provide for the LFC to— 
“(i)achieve non-discrimination in relation to the supply of relevant services; and 
“(ii)design and build the LFC fibre network in a way that enables equivalence in relation to the supply of unbundled layer 1 services to be achieved from the outset; and 
“(iii)achieve equivalence in relation to the supply of unbundled layer 1 services from the outset.
Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill — First Reading 
Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19517] 
Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill be now read a first time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19509] 
5. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How is the Government supporting social services in Canterbury? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 As part of Budget 2011 we have announced a further $10 million to support Canterbury social services. This takes the Government’s social services support to a total of $20 million. It is clear there is ongoing demand for support as the response and recovery effort unfolds particularly given the consequences of the ongoing aftershocks. This funding is going to counselling and local social services agencies in order to support Cantabrians as they deal with this disaster. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What social support has the Government given so far? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: To date the Government has granted $7.3 million of the $7.5 million through the special Canterbury Community Response Fund round. The Community Response Fund has been distributed to 335 organisations—$3.2 million of that is for increased demand $2.8 million is for coordination services and around $1 million is for non-governmental organisation relocation.
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:673;Page:19554] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the words after “That” be omitted and the following substituted: “this House has no confidence in the Government because of the current Government’s failure to create jobs its lack of a credible plan for economic growth the wildly diverging revenue forecasts the unspecified and unmandated Budget cuts and the broken promises on privatising State assets.”  
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1 Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19512] 
10. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that it would not be easy to live on the minimum wage? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Of course I agree with the Prime Minister. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does she think it would be easy to live on a youth minimum wage given that those people who are on the current minimum wage are already struggling to survive? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: We are aware that for those people on the minimum wage budgeting is tight. But we do want people to earn a lot more than the minimum wage by developing their skills being given a job and being promoted to more senior roles. 
Darien Fenton 
: If her Government is aspirational as her Prime Minister claims why is she considering lowering minimum wages for young people rather than lifting wages for all workers? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: That question relies on a false premise. No decision has been made to lower the minimum wage—or the youth rates related thereto. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What is having a greater impact on youth employment levels based on the advice she has received: minimum wage rates or her Government’s lack of a plan to create jobs? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: We have a cogent plan to increase and improve our economy which includes growing the number of jobs. We would rather see young people have a job than be priced out of getting a job. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can the Minister explain to the House what the Government’s “cogent plan” on job creation is? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Our plan is basically around building a stronger economy. I can understand that members from that party do not understand that but we do.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19585] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2A as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 3 (Boscawen Calvert Hide); Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 (Douglas Roy H); Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Schedule 2A as amended agreed to.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19501] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1A as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 1A as amended agreed to. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and no progress on the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19500] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Clare Curran to clause 23ZE be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
23ZEOperational separation undertakings cease to have effect 
(1)The separation undertakings given by Telecom in favour of the Crown for the purposes of Part 2A (before its repeal and substitution by this Act) cease to have legal effect from the close of the day before separation day. 
(2)To avoid doubt any party is able to bring proceedings against Telecom for any breach of the current operational separation undertakings even after they cease to have legal effect.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19500] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19500] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Clare Curran to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 247 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to insert a heading and clauses 23GDC to 23GDF be agreed to: 
to omit the heading above clause 23GDC and clauses 23GDC to 23GDF.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19499] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Clare Curran to clause 23G be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2) and substitute the following subclause: 
(2)The High Court may order Telecom to pay the Crown a pecuniary penalty not exceeding $100 million if the court is satisfied on the application of the Chief Executive of the Ministry that Telecom has failed to comply with subsection (1) as at separation day.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19499] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Clare Curran to clause 23H be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 69E the following subsection after subsection (1): 
(1A)Telecom must provide to the Minister detailed information about the proposed sharing arrangements.
Mallard Trevor: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19498] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think the matter is entirely as the Chair has put it. I know that Speakers’ rulings on this matter have been relatively clear in the past but it is Labour’s view that this is an egregious breach of reasonable practice. This part of the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill deals with the structural separation of Telecom and the regulatory requirements for telecommunications in New Zealand going forward in regard to these broadband matters. It is a vital part. The entire structural separation is in this part as is the entire legislative framework for it. It includes the entire fining system the competition requirements the separation requirements and what can and cannot be shared. 
Maybe I am taking it a little personally but I ran through and asked over a dozen questions of the Minister in the chair the Minister for Communications and Information Technology that were absolutely detailed. I think the Chairperson will confirm that they were all relevant and important. On the face of the bill it was not clear what the story is on any of those questions. There is an exceptional constitutional arrangement within this bill whereby instead of having a regulation-making power an offer document from 2009 is apparently now written into the law but not provided within the bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I urge the member to focus on the issue of order not to deliver another speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes sure. I am trying to say that there is a very serious concern about what we think is a very important part of this legislation. Only one member went for the call because the Labour Party has been organising its speeches in order. The honourable member Stuart Nash went for the call. A number of other members of the Committee want to speak on this part and my view is that 14 calls which is about an hour is very short for something so important.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19500] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 247 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 1A be agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19497] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do this reluctantly. I have carefully considered your decision. I know that you have put the question and that there has been a vote on it. There has been only 1 hour’s debate on the structural separation of Telecom. Therefore I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on this matter 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed.
Roy Eric: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Roy Eric: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19497] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Mr Speaker you have been recalled at the request of a motion moved in the Committee of the whole House principally because I took a closure. I consider the matter very carefully every time a closure motion is moved and I did so on this occasion. The Committee of the whole House had been debating Part 1A of the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. There had been some 14 calls. Every single member who was seeking the call had had a call. I did not accept a previous closure motion that had been put; I wanted to hear more debate on the matter. Because all members had taken a call—one member who had already had two calls was seeking the call; no one else was seeking a call at the time—and the debate had been quite fulsome and robust I considered it was therefore time to test the position of the House by accepting the closure. Accordingly I did so.
Mallard Trevor: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19497] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In the past the rulings for Chairs on these motions have always been that if new matters had been raised and the debate was relevant then the debate would not be curtailed. I put that no one else raised the questions I did and every one of the 17 questions I raised was relevant. We have had no response from the Minister for Communications and Information Technology. I know we are not meant to argue with the Chair when they are considering putting the question but I ask you to consider whether you have been reasonable in applying the rules in this matter in the way they always have been applied. Otherwise there is no incentive for members to be relevant. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The incentive to be relevant is that there will certainly be a closure. That is the case. I gave some serious consideration to the whole matter and I feel that all members who have been seeking the call have had an opportunity to speak. I cannot force any member to take a call. I desire to put the question.
Woodhouse Michael: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19495] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Smith Lockwood: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19498] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear what the member says. I do not believe that it is reasonable to argue that taking 14 calls from my experience in this place is egregious. Be that as it may that is not really the issue. 
The issue is that in this House it has been the practice that in the Committee of the whole House the Chair is the sole judge of when a closure motion may be taken. Speaker’s ruling 65/3 makes that very clear. The Speaker cannot second-guess the Chair of the Committee because the Speaker has not been party to the debate. That is a very important reason why the Speaker in my experience in this House has never overruled the Chair of the Committee in terms of when a closure motion might be accepted. Ultimately it is a matter for the Committee of the whole House to decide when the question on a closure motion is put. I understand that the Committee is in the process of taking that vote and it is most unusual practice for the Speaker to be recalled while the Committee is actually voting. But I confirm that as Speaker I am not about to overrule the decision of the Chair of the Committee. Therefore I declare the House back in Committee to carry on with the vote.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19497] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will put the question. The question is that the question be now put.
Nash Stuart: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Nash Stuart: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19497] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not mean to trouble you but I am a new member. We get 10 minutes to speak and there is no way we can go through Part 1A and mention all of the new points. No one has been derogatory. We have all stuck to the bill and asked relevant questions. I have more questions that are very relevant which I think— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have considered those matters.
Tisch Lindsay: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19485] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on this part includes schedule 2A.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19484] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19483] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 247 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19483] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Clare Curran to proposed new clause 6A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 247 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce be agreed to: 
to omit new subsection (2A) and substitute the following subsection: 
“(2A)To avoid doubt in determining whether or not or the extent to which competition in telecommunications markets for the long-term benefit of end users of telecommunications services within New Zealand is promoted consideration should have regard to— 
(a)the benefits of competition to the end user; and 
(b)the benefits of efficient investment.”
Tremain Chris: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19483] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hughes Gareth: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hughes Gareth: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19479] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 I will take just a very quick call on the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. In the hour I have been in this Chamber in the very short time that I have been aware that the Kiwi share obligation will be removed from legislation I have been tweeting and googling online. The Kiwi share has been protected in legislation since 1990 and the only way it can be amended is by Act of Parliament with the Royal assent required down the line. My question to the Minister in the chair the Minister for Communications and Information Technology asks what protection the Kiwi share will have in the future. We now know thanks to the Ministry of Economic Development’s questions and answers recently posted online that there will be the current Kiwi share obligation on retail Telecom and Chorus2 will still have the ownership provisions. 
Why does the Minister not take a call to explain exactly how this will work? I would like particularly to know how the Kiwi share obligation can be changed through the deed—through the contract signed by the Minister—with Chorus2. What is the process for this to be changed? I imagine it is considerably easier than taking it back to Parliament and getting Royal assent. Can the Minister explain exactly what those changes will be? We know that the Kiwi share has been a vital part of the telecommunications sector in New Zealand and a vital part of protecting Kiwis’ access to telecommunications and Kiwi ownership of vital infrastructure. 
It is good that apparently we will still see the 49.9 percent rule applied to Chorus2. Why did the Minister not take this provision to the Finance and Expenditure Committee to the public and to the industry? Why has it come in only now through Supplementary Order Paper 247 at the last minute? Can the Minister explain that question because I think the public of New Zealand quite clearly would like to know answers to these very important questions. 
They are rightfully concerned about the Minister of Commerce’s power to terminate someone’s internet account. As we know after the UN special rapporteur’s report and after New Zealand apparently showed support for that report through its joining with 39 other countries at the UN to endorse the Swedish representative’s speech New Zealanders are concerned about the Government’s ability to reduce people’s access to information by terminating their internet account for a civil offence. Now they are concerned about their simple access to phone lines due to the Government’s removal of the Kiwi share obligation through Supplementary Order Paper 247.
Tremain Chris: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19479] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19462] 
11. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What progress is being made on preparations for the referendum on the electoral system to be held in conjunction with this year’s general election? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Good progress. The Electoral Commission has recently launched an independent and neutral public information campaign to educate voters on the referendum process. All voters have recently been sent an enrolment pack which includes information about the questions in the referendum and the consequences of each option for further reform. 
Chester Borrows 
: What additional resources if any have been allocated to the public information campaign to help voters to make an informed choice at the referendum? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: There has been $5.4 million budgeted for the public information campaign over the 2010-11 and 2011-12 financial years. The campaign will use a variety of media: television radio newspapers an 0800 helpline and the internet as well as printed brochures with translated versions.
Adams Amy: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Adams Amy: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19558] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on the first question on Supplementary Order Paper 246 to come back to my understanding of this aspect and where we have come to on this matter. Clause 5(1) of the Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill is amended as we see in the Supplementary Order Paper. That amendment in a substantive sense adds paragraph (b) as it appears on the Supplementary Order Paper. It makes it very clear that the supplementary estimates include not only the usual realm of information which is that in the supplementary estimates documents but also the addition to the supplementary estimates.  
We accept—and it was very clearly set out in the Finance and Expenditure Committee review of this issue—that that is an unusual situation. Normally of course all the supplementary estimates have to be presented to the House at the same time. But the point that is worth getting on record very early in this debate is simply to say that obviously an exceptional set of circumstances led to the need for this Supplementary Order Paper and therefore the need for this debate. It goes without saying of course that that was not only the Canterbury earthquakes in general but the specific earthquake of 22 February. The earthquake of 22 February was—and my maths is not exact—about only 6 weeks before the cut-off date for the completion and presentation of the supplementary estimates. In that time it was simply impossible to have any sense of the fiscal implications and what supplementary estimates would be required as a consequence of that event.  
When we get to the second question we obviously can debate where those numbers have got to but I thought it was worth just getting on record that process point—that the need for this Supplementary Order Paper the need for the insertion of paragraph (b) in clause 5(1) simply reflects the time frame and the very small and insufficient window between the date of that deadly earthquake and the final cut-off date for the completion of the supplementary estimates. That is all I wanted to say on this clause. I just thought it was worth getting it on record so that it was very clear from the outset why this unusual process was adopted in this case.
McClay Todd: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
McClay Todd: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19481] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Foss Craig: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Foss Craig: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19476] 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a couple of tweets from submitters to the Finance and Expenditure Committee including one who is now a Labour candidate for the next election which say that the process of submissions was run very well and that the time allocated exceeded the 10 minutes that was publicised. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Submissions are in the public domain; I will not accept that.
Joyce Steven: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Joyce Steven: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19466] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise to take a call on the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. It makes possible the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative and the Rural Broadband Initiative which are supported by the parties in this Committee that truly believe in innovation and economic development for New Zealand’s future. 
I am not even about to start dealing with the conspiracy theories of the previous speaker but for Ms Curran’s benefit I have a couple of responses in relation to the issues she has raised. I think it is important that those issues be addressed. Both matters were addressed in the Government’s announcement of 24 May. I will deal with them in order. 
Firstly in relation to the Kiwi share obligations for consumers as the member may be aware these were superseded by the telecommunications service obligation deed with Telecom which was negotiated by the previous Government in 2001. Therefore they are not actually active in the Act at this time. We have been clear all the way through for quite some time now that the obligations in that telecommunications service obligation deed—if Telecom should become the successful bidder—would be split between Telecom and Chorus and a replacement deed would be put in place. That is currently being negotiated and there are no plans to make any changes to those obligations. 
The second issue is the ownership restrictions of the Kiwi share which is the matter addressed in Supplementary Order Paper 247 in my name. That was the subject of an announcement by me on 24 May 2011 and also the subject of a series of questions and answers released at that time so that should not come as any surprise. That was the date of the announcement of the arrangements with the successful bidders. That announcement pointed out that the ongoing ownership restrictions would remain for Chorus at that time and those have not been changed. They will be achieved through a deed between the Crown and Chorus combined with ordinary shares in Chorus that are held by the Crown and requirements in the Chorus constitution for unanimous agreement by shareholders for any change. Of course the Crown will be a shareholder. The Kiwi share obligation in that respect is no longer necessary or applicable. For completeness’ sake I note that those restrictions will not apply to the retail company in the same way that they do not apply to other retail companies such as Vodafone TelstraClear and other retail companies in the market place. That information should address the member’s issues in that respect.
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:673;Page:19554] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bills read a second time.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19459] 
9. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he agree that under section 118 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 the Medical Council has a responsibility to ensure the cultural competence of doctors and what support has the Government provided to the health sector to ensure cultural competence is achieved across the health sector? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. Under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act one of the functions of registrations authorities including the New Zealand Medical Council is to set standards of competence for practitioners that include cultural competence. There continues to be improvement work done in this area—for example the Ministry of Health advises that it has funded an online cultural competence training tool which will be widely available by the end of the year. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does he agree with Professor Mason Durie that “Cultural competence is about the acquisition of skills to achieve a better understanding of members of other cultures”; if so what professional development is available in the health workforce to assist the sector to be more in tune with its patients and to overcome bias? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes. Most professional groups require practitioners to be culturally competent and in a multicultural society like ours we would expect that. In the case of doctors both the Otago and Auckland medical schools specifically teach cultural competence to undergraduates. Health Workforce New Zealand has recently introduced a programme to help overseas doctors achieve registration in New Zealand and cultural competence is a specific part of that 12-week programme. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware of research that reports that Maori receive fewer referrals fewer diagnostic tests and less effective treatment plans from their doctors than do non-Maori patients; that they are offered treatments at substantially decreased rates interviewed for less time and prescribed fewer secondary services such as physiotherapy chiropractors and rehabilitation; and in light of such research will he instruct the Ministry of Health to make cultural competence a key national health target; if not why? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am aware of some of that research. I am confident that the work undertaken by the Ministry of Health and very importantly by professional groups in regard to cultural competence will support medical practitioners and others and will improve services for patients.
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19457] 
7. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What steps has the Government taken to facilitate resource consents for work required at the Lyttelton Port to ensure it is able to recover quickly from earthquake damage? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Recovery of the port is critical to the economies of Lyttelton Christchurch and Canterbury so the Government has streamlined the process for 10 resource consents to enable rubble to be used for a new 10-hectare reclamation—enabling some of the 8 million tonnes of earthquake waste to be put to good use. This decision was influenced by the advice I received last month in Kobe Japan on their recovery efforts after the 1995 quake. They noted that the Kobe port had been the eighth-busiest port in Japan prior to their quake then dropped to 30th and has not recovered since. Their strong advice for us in terms of our Christchurch recovery effort was to make a priority of economic infrastructure. 
Amy Adams 
: What consultation was there on the consents what conditions are there to ensure that the reclamation does not cause environmental problems for the country and what reaction has there been to the consents? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are allowed two but not three legs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A number of supplementary questions have a number of parts to them and I have never ruled them out in the past. The Minister is required to answer only one of those parts of the question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The decision required specific consultation with key affected parties. Specific conditions on the consents from Environment Canterbury and the Christchurch City Council cover issues of dust vehicle movements noise and stormwater management and ensure that only clean rubble is used. The decision has been broadly welcomed although I was disappointed that Opposition parties wanted the consent to go through— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was from the member’s own colleague. We do not need to go into what the Opposition parties might or might not have done.
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
[Volume:673;Page:19449] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will just check with the Minister: when he said “two amendments” does that mean the two clauses that relate to Canterbury or does it mean there is a further substantive amendment?
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19456] 
6. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he agree with the statement of the Auditor-General “Despite the encouraging improvements made in the last 10 years we do not yet have a system for scheduled services that can demonstrate national consistency and equitable treatment for all”? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. As the Auditor-General says we are making progress and there is still more to do with this complex and longstanding issue of nationally consistent clinical prioritisation. 
Grant Robertson 
: Will the Minister now correct the statement he made in February to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that only 2 to 3 percent of patients are treated after 6 months when the Auditor-General’s report shows that the figure is in fact 10 percent? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not recall that comment but I can say that certainly what the Auditor-General’s report shows is that consistently about 10 percent of the patients in its sample over some years were treated after 6 months. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was not shaking my head because of anything—the member interjected why have you said something and the Speaker had not said any such thing. 
Grant Robertson 
: Oh I am sorry. Does the Minister of Health recall saying to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 17 February 2011 that only 2 to 3 percent of patients are treated after 6 months and why will he now not correct that statement? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not recall saying that but what I may have been referring to—if that was in fact the case—was the fact that the elective services patient flow indicators show that the number of people who are on the waiting list after 6 months is more in that vicinity. That is not the number of people treated after 6 months which is indicated in the Auditor-General’s report. 
Grant Robertson 
: Did Ministry of Health officials request the removal of any paragraphs or specific language from the version of the report that he acknowledged in this House they had in February? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I cannot answer that question because I have not seen the draft report. But I know there was quite some discussion between the ministry and the Auditor-General I think around some of the numbers that were used. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why then did the Minister say in the House on 17 February in reference to the February version of the report “I have the report.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I did not have the report. If that is what is in  
Hansard 
 then it is incorrect. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave to table the February version of the Auditor-General’s report  
Progress in delivering publicly funded scheduled services to patients 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19455] 
4. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received about improved access to dialysis for patients in Auckland and Waitemata? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 There has been $9.2 million invested in the new state-of-the art dialysis centre on the North Shore which opened yesterday. At the opening I met one woman who has spent 14 years travelling from the North Shore to central Auckland by taxi for up to 6 hours of dialysis three times a week. Now she will walk 100 metres to the clinic. This is a very significant advance for the people of the Waitemata and the public health service in general.  
Hon Tau Henare 
: What other work is under way to bring dialysis services closer to home in Auckland? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Auckland District Health Board is moving to establish more comprehensive dialysis services for patients closer to home. It is on track to establish three comprehensive community-based dialysis centres most likely co-located near primary care clinics with the first one planned for east Auckland by next year. We are facing an increasing demand for dialysis services because of the growth of diabetes and hypertension. A new dialysis service opened in Kaitaia last year another is planned to open in Whakatane and we are investigating improved services for Wellington.