edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Wall Louisa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wall Louisa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15134] 
8.  
LOUISA WALL (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What is the Government doing to encourage more mothers to breastfeed? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Lots. Yesterday my colleague Damien O’Connor helped launch the draft National Strategic Plan of Action for Breastfeeding which is out for public comment. This plan aims to improve breastfeeding rates by ensuring that the Government the district health boards health providers and communities are all working together to improve breastfeeding rates. 
Louisa Wall 
: Why is the Government launching a national breastfeeding promotion campaign? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: Breastfeeding gives babies the best possible start in life and we all agree with that. Evidence also tells us that there are health benefits for both the infant and the mother. Breastfeeding is important for bonding and infant growth provides optimum nutrition assists infants’ physical and emotional development protects against infectious disease and may also reduce the incidence of chronic conditions such as obesity. That is why our message to mothers is “breast is best”. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister concerned that the district health boards which are currently trying to ascertain how many maternity beds they may need to provide are receiving expert advice that includes strategies that they themselves admit will have a possible effect of reducing breastfeeding rates in that district health board district? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I think the issue the member raises does not have an influence on the support that mothers require to breastfeed and also their ongoing support. It comes from their relationship with their lead maternity carer. The issue is not where the mother is breastfeeding but whether she gets the information and the support she needs both at hospital and at home to ensure good breastfeeding rates. 
Louisa Wall 
: What response has she received to the launch of the plan? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: The World Health Organization nutrition specialist Randa Saadeh yesterday endorsed the plan saying that it would ensure that mothers get good support when they need it. However although professionals are backing it we are yet to hear anything from the National Party on breastfeeding. Maybe National members think it is just another pointless strategy; if so would they abolish it? I think mothers deserve to know.
Brownlee Gerry: Members’ Bills — Procedure 
Brownlee Gerry: Members’ Bills — Procedure 
[Volume:646;Page:15130] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 The House can do anything by leave. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It can do anything. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Mr English has responded to Annette King who said— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I understand. We have a clarification; we do not want to confuse it any further. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? No objection. 
Question time resumed.
Members’ Bills — Procedure 
Members’ Bills — Procedure 
[Volume:646;Page:15130] 
Members’ Bills 
Procedure 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to introduce an amendment to the Electoral Finance Act that would allow financial agents to use a corporate or organisational address as authorising an election advertisement on the next sitting day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 This is a member’s bill I take it? It will be set down as a member’s bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No we have a clarification here. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The fact that he said “on the next sitting day” does not matter; if it is a member’s bill it is not dealt with until the next members’ day. The member has been here long enough to know the Standing Orders. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 The House can do anything by leave. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It can do anything. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Mr English has responded to Annette King who said— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I understand. We have a clarification; we do not want to confuse it any further. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? No objection. 
Question time resumed.
Cullen Michael: Members’ Bills — Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Members’ Bills — Procedure 
[Volume:646;Page:15130] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 This is a member’s bill I take it? It will be set down as a member’s bill.
Cullen Michael: Members’ Bills — Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Members’ Bills — Procedure 
[Volume:646;Page:15130] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The fact that he said “on the next sitting day” does not matter; if it is a member’s bill it is not dealt with until the next members’ day. The member has been here long enough to know the Standing Orders.
Brownlee Gerry: Members’ Bills — Procedure 
Brownlee Gerry: Members’ Bills — Procedure 
[Volume:646;Page:15130] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No we have a clarification here.
English Bill: Members’ Bills — Procedure 
English Bill: Members’ Bills — Procedure 
[Volume:646;Page:15130] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to introduce an amendment to the Electoral Finance Act that would allow financial agents to use a corporate or organisational address as authorising an election advertisement on the next sitting day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15125] 
2.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What support is the Labour-led Government providing to increase the availability of quality early childhood education? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This month the Prime Minister and I announced $6 million of new funding to build new or expanded early childhood centres across the country—around 20. Four of the centres that will receive funding are in Mangere which has been identified as a priority community for new services. Among them is the Akoteu Lotofale’ia early childhood centre which the Prime Minister and I visited and which is using a $470000 grant to increase its roll by 50 percent. All of the centres funded will offer the Labour-led Government’s incredibly popular 20 free hours and are part of a $90 million investment through the discretionary grant scheme by the Labour-led Government to build up the capacity of the early childhood sector. 
Dianne Yates 
: What reports has the Minister seen about the impact of Labour’s excellent policy of 20 free hours’ early childhood education? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have received an email from a parent that notes how important the policy of 20 free hours’ early childhood education is for her family. She said: “I am just wanting to write a note to thank the Government for the 20 free hours childcare initiative. Since our 3-year-old turned 3 in December the relief of our reduced kohanga fees have already made a huge difference to our family and the things that we have struggled with. Thank you thank you thank you.” The 20 free hours policy is extremely popular with Kiwi families so it is strange that National does not seem to have a position on it. Paula Bennett said National would scrap free early childhood education and John Key said he would keep it. Which policy can we believe? 
Paula Bennett 
: Can the Minister of Education confirm reports that at a recent early childhood sector meeting where he was being questioned on policy he had to turn to his officials to ask at what age children have to start school? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is that a discussion was had about Montessori education. Montessori centres want to keep 5-year-olds in their centres and to have them qualify for the 20 free hours. So the member of course is being quite duplicitous in her question.
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
[Volume:646;Page:15123] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to make a personal statement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What about? 
RON MARK 
: On positions taken on Mugabe—my position on Mugabe. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Would members please settle. Interventions like the one that was made before come very close to trifling with this House. I warn members of that.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
[Volume:646;Page:15123] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It has been long accepted in this House that once a member’s word is given then that must in fact prevail when it comes to these matters. However I would also note to members that when leave is sought to make a personal explanation there is always the opportunity for members to deny that leave. So there is a balance there.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
[Volume:646;Page:15122] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 There is a very big difference between supporting an incoming regime as having got rid of a repressive earlier regime and supporting that new regime full stop when it turns out that it is doing outrageous things. I supported the election of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe because of the regime he replaced. I do not think anybody could legitimately accuse me of supporting what Robert Mugabe has done since.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
[Volume:646;Page:15122] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is worth recording that yesterday I did not accuse Mr Locke of supporting genocide. I said he supported the Pol Pot regime and that headline seems to me to be conclusive as to that fact. One may of course change one’s mind subsequently about that in the light of experience. Now Mr Locke does place us in difficulty and I said to him after the House rose when he approached me somewhat upset that I could have taken a breach of privilege given his claim that he never had supported the regime at all which seems to me to be denied by the fact. The difficulty with the personal explanation is that it then becomes a means of denying what seems to be an unavoidable fact.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
[Volume:646;Page:15122] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 This is a very small typed note but it reads this way in the words of Keith Locke: “When they discover the real gains that the revolution brings for the Indochinese people they will start to question many things.” Now there may have been no gains at all which is a fact—in fact it was an absolute disaster—but Mr Locke wrote those words. He supported the regime and he cannot get up and gainsay it now and ask that his verbal word be taken while his written word is not.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
[Volume:646;Page:15122] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order because in some ways you have dishonoured your ruling at the start of the House today. As of late there has been on the part of a member of the Green Party a tendency to get up to deny what is a fact and to protest that he did not say something when the evidence that he did has been tabled—and tabled for a number of years now. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have not finished my point of order yet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will hear this point of order then we will take a response to it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is typical of it without even being— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is unnecessary. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am being interrupted already. The fact is that as one reads the last paragraph of the article that has been tabled which is headed “Cambodia liberated: victory for humanity” one sees a boast in it in the second to last sentence that the writer of that article one Keith Locke cannot deny. In short he supported it. If we are for ever to be challenged by his denying what has been tabled in this House and substantiated not just by me but by other members from across the House and across the political divide then we surely will bring this House into disorder. No one should be asked to apologise or withdraw for the allegations against Mr Locke because he did write that. They are his words. Like all politicians we live with what we have said in the past and so should he.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
[Volume:646;Page:15122] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It is a longstanding point of order in this House that a member’s word is to be taken. That word has been given. What is more by way of a personal explanation my colleague Mr Locke explained that there is a big difference between welcoming a change of regime when an oppressive regime is turfed out and then later supporting what the new regime turns out to do. That is an entirely consistent position. It has been pointed out more than once in this House and the member’s point of order is a fabrication.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:646;Page:15121] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following an agreement of the Business Committee on Tuesday I seek leave for the House to adjourn at 5.45 p.m. today. That will assist some members with provincial seats to get flights home for Easter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:646;Page:15121] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following an agreement of the Business Committee on Tuesday I seek leave for the House to adjourn at 5.45 p.m. today. That will assist some members with provincial seats to get flights home for Easter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:646;Page:15121] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill the Human Tissue Bill and the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill. The first Wednesday back is a members’ day. The maiden statement of Su’a William Sio will take place at approximately 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday 1 April.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:646;Page:15121] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill the Human Tissue Bill and the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill. The first Wednesday back is a members’ day. The maiden statement of Su’a William Sio will take place at approximately 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday 1 April.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections—Member’s Right to Object 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections—Member’s Right to Object 
[Volume:646;Page:15121] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yesterday a number of members raised points of order about personal reflections. I ruled on this matter on Tuesday. In my ruling I pointed out that “Members’ freedom of speech should not be curtailed unless members’ remarks are offensive on the face of it or are strongly insulting.” 
The Leader of the House made an allegation about another member’s support of a past political regime. Such a statement is not offensive on the face of it. It may not have been correct but that is not for the Speaker to judge and the Speaker cannot intervene on that basis. 
In a later supplementary question a further allegation was made. This allegation referred to a matter that had been the subject of a personal explanation. Where a member makes a personal explanation denying something the member’s word must be accepted and it is improper for another member to pursue the matter. The Chair will look to protect the member. On this basis the Leader of the House was asked to withdraw and apologise and he did. I note that Mr Locke was subsequently given leave to make a further personal explanation in which he denied supporting the political regime in question. Further references of the type made initially by the Leader of the House would now not be in order. 
Subsequently allegations of “cheating” and “stealing” were made against the Government. Ministers took exception. The Government consists of members. Therefore a term cannot be applied to the Government that cannot be applied to other members generally—Speaker’s ruling 47/6. The allegations that were made imputed improper motives on the part of the Government. They were a personal reflection in the terms of Standing Order 116. Ministers upon taking an objection were entitled to the protection of the Chair.
Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections—Member’s Right to Object 
Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections—Member’s Right to Object 
[Volume:646;Page:15121] 
Thursday 20 March 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Personal Reflections—Member’s Right to Object 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yesterday a number of members raised points of order about personal reflections. I ruled on this matter on Tuesday. In my ruling I pointed out that “Members’ freedom of speech should not be curtailed unless members’ remarks are offensive on the face of it or are strongly insulting.” 
The Leader of the House made an allegation about another member’s support of a past political regime. Such a statement is not offensive on the face of it. It may not have been correct but that is not for the Speaker to judge and the Speaker cannot intervene on that basis. 
In a later supplementary question a further allegation was made. This allegation referred to a matter that had been the subject of a personal explanation. Where a member makes a personal explanation denying something the member’s word must be accepted and it is improper for another member to pursue the matter. The Chair will look to protect the member. On this basis the Leader of the House was asked to withdraw and apologise and he did. I note that Mr Locke was subsequently given leave to make a further personal explanation in which he denied supporting the political regime in question. Further references of the type made initially by the Leader of the House would now not be in order. 
Subsequently allegations of “cheating” and “stealing” were made against the Government. Ministers took exception. The Government consists of members. Therefore a term cannot be applied to the Government that cannot be applied to other members generally—Speaker’s ruling 47/6. The allegations that were made imputed improper motives on the part of the Government. They were a personal reflection in the terms of Standing Order 116. Ministers upon taking an objection were entitled to the protection of the Chair.
Dean Jacqui: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Dean Jacqui: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15032] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the 2006-07 performance of the Ministry for the Environment. The first thing we need to note is that New Zealand is not being well served by the ministry. I will confine my comments mainly to the issue of water. 
I believe that New Zealand is at a bit of a crossing point in terms of water quality. The Ministry for the Environment is failing on a number of fronts regarding water in New Zealand and the first front that the ministry is failing on concerns water quality. The Labour-led Government says it is very proud of its achievements yet the reality presents a somewhat different picture. We know that under the stewardship of the Labour Government water quality has declined continues to decline and will continue to decline for up to the next 20 or 30 years. The response to that from the Ministry for the Environment is at best feeble. 
The other great concern about water relates to the issue of water allocation. Of course water allocation is most pertinent to those of us— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report progress. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
O'Connor Damien: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15018] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 I have to stand up and challenge that outrageous speech made by a member who should know better. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Read the page. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I have read the page I say to Mr Williamson. I think the member is quite right. There was $224 million unspent and that goes against the traditions of previous National Governments and indeed some Labour Governments. If there was any unspent money when getting towards the end of the year what happened was that officials ran around the country throwing money at contractors willy-nilly without any idea what effect that would have on the infrastructure of this country. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: But they said it wasn’t their role. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I applaud the Ministry of Transport for not spending that money. The reason it could not spend it is that contractors up and down this country are flat out trying to spend the money that this Government has committed to transport infrastructure in this country. They cannot find the workers— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The member is digging a hole for himself. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: If the member wants to run around the country and ask 1000 people anything every one of those 1000 people will say they have never seen so many roadworks going on up and down the country. 
I applaud the Ministry of Transport for not throwing away $224 million because it chose to spend money in a considered careful and strategic way. The only thing truthful in that member’s speech was the fact that next year this Government will spend more than the total taxes taken from road-user charges and excise taxes back on the roads of this country. 
Hon David Parker 
: The first time. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: It is the first time ever absolutely. More money will be spent on land transport—roads public transport and total infrastructure including encouragement to get more freight off the roads on to ships and indeed on to the rails. 
I think Land Transport New Zealand should be applauded for the work it has done. It has geared up the contracting industry in this country to next year hopefully spend more money than has ever been spent on transport infrastructure in this country and that is something we are also proud of. 
Report noted.
O'Connor Damien: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15016] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge the wonderful work that the police do. I acknowledge the member Mr Borrows who has just spoken. He referred to the fantastic job that the police have done and I think he made a very good speech except for the last part where he put forward a proposition that we had followed some of National’s ideas or policy. We have yet to see any policy or ideas from National so we would never be following them. In fact a number of wonderful initiatives have been put in place this year and through a difficult period for the police I would have to say; it has not always been easy. These initiatives have been put in place over a period where we have seen a reduction in crime. We have seen one particular area—violent crime—stubbornly stuck I guess at too high a level but there has been a zero-tolerance approach to domestic violence. What that has done is to expose more trouble in the homes around this country and the police have acted on it immediately and I think that is to be applauded. It is not an easy area for police work. 
The drug and alcohol-fuelled violence and crime around this country is also a challenging area and we have to continue to work on that. That is why this Government has committed as part of the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First to 1000 more police on the beat. We are halfway towards that target and I think that is a wonderful achievement. It is not that we have just put those police on the beat in dilapidated facilities; we have committed also to a building programme which has seen major police stations built in places like Manukau and on the North Shore. It is not happening in only the big places because new police stations have been built in small places like Tokomaru Bay and Masterton. Those people have appreciated this Government’s commitment. 
I would just like to put on record that the Government is committed to reducing crime over time with its Effective Interventions programme which is a whole-of-justice approach. We are catching the people because the police are far more effective. We are processing them through the courts in a more efficient way and we now have more options for dealing with those offenders such as more sentencing options more treatment options and better rehabilitation facilities. So I would just like to put on record that across the whole of the justice sector including the police this Government has made a significant contribution to progress in this country through a long-term reduction in crime and repeat offending. 
Report noted.
Hughes Darren: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15004] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a speech from John Key where he says that public service numbers will be frozen at the same number that they are at under the Labour Government. 
Document not tabled. 
Report noted.
Hobbs Marian: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:14995] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Will members please turn to the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government. The question is that the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the year ended 30 June 2007 be noted. I note that this report also relates to the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s financial review of Treasury so the performance in the 2006-07 financial year and the current operations of Treasury may also be debated.
Barker Rick: Urgent Debates — Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest Report 
Barker Rick: Urgent Debates — Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest Report 
[Volume:646;Page:14994] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the minutes of the audit and finance committee meeting on 19 December 2007 of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Roy Heather: Urgent Debates — Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest Report 
Roy Heather: Urgent Debates — Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest Report 
[Volume:646;Page:14994] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table the minutes of the audit and finance committee meeting on 15 December showing that none of those members voted. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Turner Judy: Urgent Debates — Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest Report 
Turner Judy: Urgent Debates — Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest Report 
[Volume:646;Page:14990] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to talk about the report from the independent review of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board following the Minister’s decision to remove the board from office some weeks ago. Although we would all love to know who was right and who was wrong in the many conflicts the board was needing to give leadership on the question that this review panel needed to answer was whether the board was able to chart a course through those conflicts and challenges before it or whether it was so dysfunctional that the Minister David Cunliffe had no choice but to take the action he did. 
Since the report there have been questions about the integrity of the panel conducting the review. That is now a line that the Opposition is running—so much so that the panel has felt the need to refer to its independence and impartiality at the end of its report. Early drafts of any report can look very different from the final wording. One does not need to spend very long on a select committee to know that. The sinister innuendo now floating around this parliamentary ether is that pressure from Government quarters has been brought to bear on the panel. Those inferences are not just an attack on the Government but more important an attack on the integrity of some very credible experts who made up the review panel. 
The conflicts and financial challenges facing this district health board are currently and remain the concern of a commissioner. Beyond resolving those conflicts and challenges the greater need is for the tone that underpins the working environment existing between staff management and governance at Hawke’s Bay District Health Board to be seriously considered. When an essential community provider is characterised by suspicion manipulation cronyism gossip and a complete disregard for good process and practice then systemic collapse is inevitable. 
United Future sees that the way forward needs to involve establishing a measurable list of criteria outlining those ingredients needing to be in place before an election can be held to ensure that any future board inherits a workable proposition. It is not necessarily about resolving every challenge that faces the current district health board; it is actually about establishing a sustainable and positive working relationship so that Hawke’s Bay people can be confident that this disruption both to the day-to-day work of their health authority and to democratic outcomes can have no part in the future of their health services. United Future urges the Government to move forward from this report and to make sure that every support is given to the commissioner to put in place all that needs to be put in place so that a democratic election can be held and Hawke’s Bay can enjoy being led by a proper health board that is democratically elected.
Robertson H V Ross: Urgent Debates — Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest Report 
Robertson H V Ross: Urgent Debates — Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest Report 
[Volume:646;Page:14990] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I advise the House that the next speaker will have 5 minutes. For the benefit of the speaker I will ring the bell with 1 minute remaining.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest Report 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest Report 
[Volume:646;Page:14976] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Tony Ryall seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the reports of conflicts of interest and other matters at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The report relates to important aspects of health sector governance that are of considerable public interest. I accept that it requires the urgent attention of the House.
Urgent Debates Declined — National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Report on First Analysis of Marking Tibet—Protests 
Urgent Debates Declined — National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Report on First Analysis of Marking Tibet—Protests 
[Volume:646;Page:14976] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Report on First Analysis of Marking 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Dail Jones seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the report on the results of the first analysis of schools’ National Certificate of Educational Achievement marking. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However there needs to be an element of urgency for the business of the House to be set aside. There will be other parliamentary opportunities to consider the results. The financial review of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is currently before the Education and Science Committee. The application is therefore declined. 
Tibet—Protests 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from Keith Locke seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 what New Zealand’s response should be to China’s crackdown on the demonstrators in Tibet over the last few days. Although there is no ministerial responsibility for the recent protests there is ministerial responsibility for New Zealand’s response. The making of a ministerial announcement does not of itself justify the setting aside of the business of the House. There must be an element of urgency for the matter to take precedence over other business of the House. Furthermore the House has today already had an opportunity to discuss the issue. The application is therefore declined.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Report on First Analysis of Marking Tibet—Protests 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Report on First Analysis of Marking Tibet—Protests 
[Volume:646;Page:14976] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from Keith Locke seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 what New Zealand’s response should be to China’s crackdown on the demonstrators in Tibet over the last few days. Although there is no ministerial responsibility for the recent protests there is ministerial responsibility for New Zealand’s response. The making of a ministerial announcement does not of itself justify the setting aside of the business of the House. There must be an element of urgency for the matter to take precedence over other business of the House. Furthermore the House has today already had an opportunity to discuss the issue. The application is therefore declined.
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister 12 March 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister 12 March 
[Volume:646;Page:14976] 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 12 to Minister 12 March 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 In response to a supplementary question on Wednesday 12 March I said: “… some 94 or 95 percent of State house tenants are on income-related rentals.” The correct figure is 91 percent.
Street Maryan: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister 12 March 
Street Maryan: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister 12 March 
[Volume:646;Page:14976] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 In response to a supplementary question on Wednesday 12 March I said: “… some 94 or 95 percent of State house tenants are on income-related rentals.” The correct figure is 91 percent.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Report on First Analysis of Marking Tibet—Protests 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Report on First Analysis of Marking Tibet—Protests 
[Volume:646;Page:14976] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Dail Jones seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the report on the results of the first analysis of schools’ National Certificate of Educational Achievement marking. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However there needs to be an element of urgency for the business of the House to be set aside. There will be other parliamentary opportunities to consider the results. The financial review of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is currently before the Education and Science Committee. The application is therefore declined.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:14975] 
12.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: What has the Government done to improve the transition for young disabled people with high needs into adulthood? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 Under the Labour-led Government things have changed dramatically and positively for young disabled people. This year there has been significant growth in transition services. There are now 65 organisations across the country supporting young disabled people to move from school to adulthood and recently I announced a change in the age at which very high-needs students are eligible for transition services funding. Disabled students will now be able to choose to leave school at an age that is appropriate to their own circumstances. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How has the Government enhanced the opportunities for young disabled New Zealanders to move into work? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Through Working New Zealand the Government has fundamentally changed the way we work with people to support them into paid work. These changes recognise that most people want to work and with the right support they can. Under Pathways to Inclusion funding 9000 disabled people are placed into open paid employment over 20000 disabled people receive a vocational service and 3.5 million hours of community participation services are funded each financial year and this year we are on track to exceed those figures. This is all part of Labour’s long-term commitment to build an inclusive society.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:14972] 
10.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he agree that a scholarship for every child as outlined in my speech to the ACT party conference on Saturday would increase choice allow greater diversity and flexibility and improve educational achievement; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 No but I do agree with the member’s opening statement in his speech that education is the key to our long-term prosperity. What I do not agree with is his plan to introduce an education voucher scheme under a new name. Such a scheme would just create winner schools and loser schools and do nothing to improve overall educational outcomes. Although I disagree with ACT’s voucher plan I congratulate the party on at least coming up with a policy. That is more than we can say about the National Party. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister think it is right and fair that families that take responsibility for their children’s education and send their children to an independent school have to pay twice for that privilege once through their taxes and again through their school fees; if so why? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I thought the ACT party stood for choice. Parents do have the choice to send their children to a quality State school or to a private school. The plan by ACT to have a voucher system would simply perpetuate the inequalities we had under bulk funding which saw the development of winner schools and loser schools. 
Dianne Yates 
: What reports has the Minister seen about the impact of voucher-style education systems? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am aware of research by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research entitled  
Can Vouchers Deliver Better Education? 
 which reviews international studies for their relevance to New Zealand. It concludes: “Competition for students by schools does not improve quality achievement or access. Such schemes favour a minority at the expense of the majority. Competition among schools is hardest on those serving lower socio-economic communities and in fact depresses overall educational levels.” These outcomes would never be acceptable to a Labour-led Government and I would welcome Roger Douglas’ and indeed National’s education spokesperson Anne Tolley’s campaigning on just such a policy. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister feel so strongly against giving parents a choice of school including independent schools that he would resign as Minister of Education if that were a condition of support from MMP parties for a future Government? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I think the likelihood of Labour going into coalition with ACT is nil especially with the addition of Roger Douglas to its party list.
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:14970] 
8.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What are the main findings of the Director-General of Health’s report into alleged conflicts of interest at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The independent panel found that the board’s handling of conflicts of interest in general could not pass even the most basic thresholds of good governance. Secondly it found that conflicts of interest were wide ranging and poorly handled. The panel was particularly critical of the previous chair Kevin Atkinson and also a longstanding board member Peter Dunkerley in that regard. Thirdly the panel found that Mr Hausmann could have done a better job of managing his conflicts of interest. Fourthly the panel found that a seriously eroded and dysfunctional relationship existed between the board and management and it was readily apparent that it could not be resolved without external input. In short as the independent panel chair has said the board was approaching a railway crossing whose lights were flashing but was carrying on anyway.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:14964] 
5.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why did the Government appoint Peter Hausmann to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Mr Hausmann was appointed to fill a vacancy at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board in 2005. The Ministry of Health had identified that the board was quite clearly lacking experience in financial and business areas. It was noted that Mr Hausmann had significant health sector knowledge together with commercial communications and technology experience. Potential conflicts of interest were identified in a Cabinet paper which has been made publicly available. Once appointed those conflicts were a matter for the appointee and the board chair to manage.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:14962] 
3.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Health? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: What confidence can the public have in a report that fails to address many of the critical questions including that of the actual appointment of Mr Hausmann by Annette King despite his clear and substantial conflicts of interest as well as all those of the actions of the district health board executives in silencing the whistleblower and their actions in allowing Hausmann to help write not just the tender documents but also the relevant board papers? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The report found that the board had inadequate systems for the management of conflicts of interest. The report also found that there was a seriously eroded and dysfunctional relationship between board and management. I believe that the Minister acted appropriately. 
John Key 
: What does the Prime Minister say to Deborah Houston the Hawke’s Bay whistleblower who became aware of serious conflicts of interest who followed due process only to find that her professionalism was rewarded by the loss of her job and who now finds out that these matters have been completely ignored by the report? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not believe there is any evidence to suggest that she lost her job because of whistle-blowing. 
John Key 
: Why did the report ignore issues around the whistleblower when the Prime Minister herself last year said in relation to the treatment of the whistleblower that “any issue around that could be looked at as well.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat: I do not believe there is any evidence that the whistleblower lost her job because of whistle-blowing. 
John Key 
: Should the House have as much confidence in this report as it did in the Ingram report into Taito Phillip Field; and is it not a hallmark of the Prime Minister’s Government that she commissions reports to find out things she wants to hear and conveniently leaves a whole lot of other stuff unanswered unless people keep digging? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No but it is a hallmark of the Opposition that it attacks every independent report commissioned by the Government.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:14961] 
2.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the success of the Government’s KiwiSaver scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 A KiwiSaver evaluation report released last Thursday shows that KiwiSaver is attracting members from across age groups ethnicities and income brackets and KiwiSavers are expected to become even more diverse as more of them join the scheme through automatic enrolment when they start a new job. The numbers are now rapidly approaching 500000 and the latest surveys show a significant increase in the membership of work-based superannuation schemes. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on policies to alter the Government’s KiwiSaver scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I have seen a report that Mr Bill English was today to outline his party’s stance on the future of the Government’s KiwiSaver scheme in a speech to the superannuation conference. In the end the speech turned out to be all flop and no flip at least as yet but members should continue to watch this space. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What reports has the Minister received on support for KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The latest report I have is that as of Monday 495000 New Zealanders have signed up to KiwiSaver. The 500000 mark will be reached either just before Easter or just after Easter. I have also seen a report that over 100000 young people have joined KiwiSaver despite the Leader of the Opposition’s confident predictions that they would not join it. But then of course he has invested in Merrill Lynch shares. We have not seen a clear policy from National. What we know is that it voted against the KiwiSaver scheme 40 times.