edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Flavell Te Ururoa: Urgent Debates — David Parker—Resignation from Executive 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Urgent Debates — David Parker—Resignation from Executive 
[Volume:630;Page:1988] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker tena tatou katoa. Me ki penei na i runga i o tatou marae ko te tikanga ko nga mea kua he ka tae ki mua i te aroaro o te iwi. Ka mutu ka korero ratou ka noho wahangu te iwi. Kia mutu te korero ka rongo te mea whakahe i nga painga i nga kino ka puta i te korero. Kia mutu te korero me noho ratou mai i te timatanga ki te mutunga o te korero. Ko taku ko ta matou o Te Torangapu Maori ko te mihi ki a Mr Parker i tae mai i te ra nei ki te whakamarama mai i tana he. Ka mutu i reira. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us all. Let me say this: the custom on our marae is that those who have erred must appear before the people. After that they present their case andthe people remain silent. After the delivery the ones in opposition hear the positives and negatives that emerged. At the end of the delivery the people must remainfor the entire discussion from the beginning to the end. For me personally and for us of the Maori Party we commend Mr Parker who came here today to explain where he erred. My address ends there 
.]
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates — David Parker—Resignation from Executive 
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates — David Parker—Resignation from Executive 
[Volume:630;Page:1977] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am interested that you say Dr Brash lodged his first. What time did he lodge his application with your office? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member can come and look at it at the Table. As I recall it was a day or so ago. I am quite happy for the member to come and look at the correspondence.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — David Parker—Resignation from Executive 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — David Parker—Resignation from Executive 
[Volume:630;Page:1977] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have also received applications from the Leader of the Opposition and Rodney Hide to debate the resignation of David Parker. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and I agree that it requires the immediate attention of the House. The application is therefore accepted. Dr Brash lodged this application first so I call on him to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Expenses—Decision on Prosecution 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Expenses—Decision on Prosecution 
[Volume:630;Page:1977] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 a decision by the New Zealand Police not to prosecute in relation to complaints it received that arose out of the 2005 general election. The decision of the Police is a particular case of recent occurrence but I do not accept that it involves the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. Under our system of Government decisions on whether to initiate a police prosecution are made independently of the Minister. That has been the case for many years. I have to say that even if there had been ministerial responsibility I do not believe that this matter would require the attention of the House by way of an urgent debate today. It is known that the subject matter of the complaints will be available for examination as part of the regular post-election review by the Justice and Electoral Committee. The substantive issues relating to the electoral law can be pursued there. This application is declined.
Urgent Debates Declined — Election Expenses—Decision on Prosecution 
Urgent Debates Declined — Election Expenses—Decision on Prosecution 
[Volume:630;Page:1977] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Election Expenses—Decision on Prosecution 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 a decision by the New Zealand Police not to prosecute in relation to complaints it received that arose out of the 2005 general election. The decision of the Police is a particular case of recent occurrence but I do not accept that it involves the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. Under our system of Government decisions on whether to initiate a police prosecution are made independently of the Minister. That has been the case for many years. I have to say that even if there had been ministerial responsibility I do not believe that this matter would require the attention of the House by way of an urgent debate today. It is known that the subject matter of the complaints will be available for examination as part of the regular post-election review by the Justice and Electoral Committee. The substantive issues relating to the electoral law can be pursued there. This application is declined.
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:1977] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I regret that the information I gave was incorrect. Instead of 225000 as I informed the House the correct figure is 185000.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:1976] 
12.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has she been advised of the progress of the inquiry being undertaken by Dr Noel Ingram to investigate allegations of conflicts of interest involving the Hon Taito Phillip Field; if so has she been advised of when she is to receive the final report? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and no but I understand that it is nearing completion. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What has she been advised by Dr Ingram are the reasons for the delay in the report of his inquiry which was announced by her on 20 September last year and due to report its findings by 4 October yet which has still not been received 6 months later? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have been saying throughout that 6-month period that Dr Ingram should take as long as he needs to in order to write a good report. 
Ron Mark 
: Has she been advised of the progress of any other investigations being undertaken by any other ministries into any other members of Parliament such as for instance the investigation being conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade into the allegations of conflicts of interest and impropriety that involve the member for Wairarapa Mr John Hayes; if so what can she tell us about that inquiry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I do not have any information about that inquiry although I am sure that if the activities alleged had been undertaken while the member was in the service of the ministry then that would have been of considerable concern to it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the members who were whistling in the House please refrain from doing so unless they wish to leave the Chamber. [ 
Interruption 
] It is not a laughing matter; I take it very seriously. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is she aware whether the inquiry is covering issues surrounding any involvement of Taito Phillip Field in prospective immigrants to New Zealand being offered jobs by Culvedern Group Ltd—trading as Pasifika Centre and Hospital—which is currently having its certification reviewed by the Ministry of Health and which has some staff under police investigation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I do not have any advice on that matter. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What action does she as Prime Minister intend to take if upon the receipt of Dr Ingram’s report Taito Phillip Field is found to have been misusing his position as a member of Parliament? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As Prime Minister I have responsibility for Ministers; I do not have responsibility for members of Parliament.
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:1974] 
10.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: Was she aware of complaints surrounding Focus 2000 prior to 2005; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 As Minister for Disability Issues I have no record of receiving any complaints about Focus 2000 prior to 2005. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister seriously expect New Zealanders to believe that although widespread allegations involving death maltreatment and abuse were documented as far back as 2002 she did not find out for over 2½ years? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As Minister for Disability Issues I have no record of having received any complaints about concerns about Focus 2000 prior to the date that I have already confirmed 3 weeks running to that member in this House. What part of that does he not understand? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What has the Minister actually done now that she is aware of the wide number of complaints surrounding Focus 2000? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I presume the member is referring in terms of width to the range of issues that have been raised given that they range from literal abuse through to overpayment. As Minister for Disability Issues I have discussed the matter with the Minister responsible for service delivery and have confidence in the process he has in place for the auditing of those issues. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister been made aware of any other complaints concerning disability issues? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am aware of the very deep concern within the disability sector regarding comments that advocating for disability is too PC and divorced from the mainstream. Those comments were made by the National Party’s PC eradicator Dr Wayne Mapp. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: If the very serious 2002 complaints about Focus 2000 were kept secret by the Ministry of Health until recently as is alleged by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 does she as Minister for Disability Issues agree that the Ministry of Health has covered up an issue that deeply affects thousands of disabled people? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In relation to the first part of that question it is possible that on this one particular occasion the  
New Zealand Herald 
 has got it wrong. I am not implying that; I just realise that it is a possibility. In response to the second part of the question I suggest that if the member wants answers about issues relating to health services he ask the Minister of Health. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Is the Minister not failing to fulfil her role as advocate for the disabled when allegations including death by choking maltreatment and abuse remain widespread and are clinical issues very seriously affecting the disabled? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:1971] 
7.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What steps are now under way to improve maternity services in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Ministry of Health is currently leading discussions with leaders in the maternity sector including the College of Midwives the New Zealand Medical Association the Paediatric Society and many others. The talks are focused on achieving real improvements in maternity services through better coordination between lead maternity carers primary health organisations and hospital services. 
Maryan Street 
: What other proposals has he seen on ways to address issues in maternity services? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have seen at least two. One proposal calls for a review of maternity services; another proposal says that a review would be a waste of time and that the Government should instead encourage better coordination within maternity care. The problem is that both of these proposals come from the National Party. The first is from Tony Ryall and the second is from obstetrician and gynaecologist Paul Hutchison. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How many more dead or brain-damaged babies will there have to be before the Government realises that there is a problem with the system? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: A time-consuming review would stall the real progress that is being made in discussions led by the Ministry of Health. The ministry and the maternity sector are taking this approach because they know that action is needed now not after a drawn-out review process. Further of the 600 or thereabouts neonatal deaths that occur in New Zealand that number has fallen sharply over recent decades. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does the national strategy for the development and retention of the medical workforce in New Zealand which the Minister confirmed existed during question time last week include ensuring that an adequate number of midwives is employed by each district health board; if not when will these midwife shortages become the responsibility of the Minister if at all? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Midwife shortages to the extent that they exist are my responsibility now. There is an excess of midwives in parts of the country and a shortage in other parts. Both of them are relatively minor. Both of them need constant attention. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Why is the Minister’s committee looking to improve maternity data collection by proposing to collect information only on maternity deaths but not on brain damage or other sad birth outcomes in live babies? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Plans are afoot to improve the collection of morbidity data which indeed have been improved a lot since the late 1990s but further improvements are due and announcements will be made presently.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:1968] 
4.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What is the Government doing to reduce accident compensation levies for small businesses and self-employed people? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Almost 225000 small businesses and self-employed people from 1 April this year will be able to apply for discounted accident compensation levies when they put workplace safety plans in place. That is very good news for those who run small businesses and for self-employed people in our country. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: How do today’s total average levy rates paid by self-employed people compare with rates from previous years? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The total average rates for self-employed people today are 14.6 percent lower than they were when the self-employed work account was created by the National Government in 1998.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:1964] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I draw the member’s attention to Speakers’ ruling 138(3) which states: “Ultimately the Speaker could refuse to permit a question to be transferred to another Minister for answer if the responsibility for a subject is so primarily held by a particular Minister as to mean that the transfer of the question would be an abuse.” I follow that Speakers’ ruling. 
Question withdrawn.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:1964] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Madam Speaker the Speakers’ rulings are very clear. Only in exceptional circumstances would a question that has been transferred be referred back by yourself. In this case of course the principal part of the question is in relation to a statement in the Speech from the Throne. The Speech from the Throne is not a personal statement of the Prime Minister; it is a statement of all the Government’s policy including all Ministers within the Government.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:1964] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to clarify whether there any circumstances where you will not permit the transfer of a question or whether that is now an automatic right of the Government. The point of my question question No. 2 was to ask the Prime Minister for clarification of her statement of support for coal-fired power stations in the interview with the press. The newly appointed Minister of Energy has no responsibility for those statements made by the Prime Minister so I am asking your guidance as to whether this means that there are no conditions under which transfers will not be permitted.
Barnett Tim: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2253] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Street Maryan: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Street Maryan: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2251] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Sutton Jim: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Sutton Jim: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2249] 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of State) 
: 
 Before the Committee wanders off permanently into debating things that are not in the bill rather than things that are I thought I should take the opportunity to respond to one or two matters that have been raised. Not wanting to encourage members to relitigate the decision of whether we should have the Supreme Court I point out that in 166 years the Privy Council heard only seven criminal appeals from New Zealand. Already in 2 years the Supreme Court has granted leave to hear 12 criminal appeals so the point made about there being a final Court of Appeal that people can actually conceivably get to is I think well made. 
I acknowledge the support for this bill. The debate has been constructive. I understand that the proceedings in the Government Administration Committee were constructive although I do detect tonight the first signs of a split between ACT and the Maori Party. We will see when the votes come. By and large members on both sides seem to be pretty like-minded on this bill. I point out that the videoconferencing proposal arose after the bill had been reported back from the select committee so it shows some willingness around the Chamber to be flexible that this is proceeding with general agreement. 
Chris Finlayson expressed support for the Law Commission recommendation that first appeals from District Court jury trials be made to the High Court instead of directly to the Court of Appeal. The Government in its response to the Law Commission has agreed to examine this recommendation and we are not unsympathetic to it. But the fact is that the homework has to be done and we should not hold up this sensible legislation while we do it. That is not to say that we should not get officials to do the work on it and we will get there. 
Finally in response to the point made by the member who just resumed his seat I note that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides that all persons convicted of an offence have the right to appeal to a higher court against the conviction the sentence or both. I note that the provision guarantees only one right of appeal; second and subsequent appeals may require the appellant to seek leave to appeal.
Sutton Jim: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
Sutton Jim: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2236] 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of State) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed his seat Chris Finlayson asked whether there was an updated figure for the total amount of court fines reparation and infringement fines due but not yet paid. I am sorry but we do not have an update on that. However the figure of $650 million that was given is pretty recent. It does include court fines and reparation but the great bulk of the amount—about $500 million—is infringement fines. 
 So it is not money that other citizens are urgently in need of; it is money owed by people who in general have been convicted of some misdemeanour and are required to pay a fine as reparation to society for their misdeeds. 
From the Opposition I hear endless repetitive complaints about the problem but no real new ideas about what could be done about it. This bill is designed to improve the effectiveness of the Ministry of Justice fines and several enforcement activities through interrelated amendments to a number of Acts. It will improve enforcement powers and that is what we are here for. I do not think the House should be subjected to long and repetitive complaints about the problem. The bill attacks the problems. We should just vote it through and get on with it.
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2234] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2234] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2226] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2226] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Fairbrother Russell: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2226] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hughes Darren: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2225] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Gosche Mark: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Gosche Mark: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2224] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hodgson Pete: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2220] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee of the whole House on the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) to have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 21. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not.
Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee 
Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2220] 
Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee of the whole House on the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) to have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 21. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not.
Gosche Mark: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Gosche Mark: Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2218] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to speak briefly in this debate on the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill which is important legislation. It provides for compliance with the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. New Zealand has actively supported the development of that protocol which reflects our abhorrence of torture and our commitment to human rights. 
The Optional Protocol is aimed at preventing torture rather than bringing torturers to justice after the event. The bill is not only a measure to ensure that New Zealanders will continue to be protected against torture and other forms of ill-treatment in the future but it is also a signal to others around the world that torture will not be tolerated and that with the collective efforts of the international community it can be prevented. 
I am sure that the select committee dealing with this bill will give it proper consideration and that the public will be able to make their thoughts heard. I look forward to that happening and to the bill being reported back to the House.
Vote: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Vote: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:630;Page:2204] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to.
Carter David: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Carter David: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:630;Page:2203] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just before the question is put I seek the indulgence of the House and seek leave to make one contribution to this debate. As the agriculture spokesperson I have had a long interest in this subject as noted by the House today when questions were raised during question time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to do so. Leave has been sought given the member’s position as agriculture spokesperson. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.
Vote: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Vote: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:630;Page:2203] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Hughes Darren: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:630;Page:2203] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Carter John: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Carter John: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:630;Page:2197] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the Local Government Law Reform Bill when I get it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Burton Mark: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Burton Mark: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:630;Page:2197] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two documents: first the minutes of the House of Representatives Business Committee of Tuesday 14 March—as confirmed on 21 March—to which is attached the second document the description of the Local Government Law Reform Bill which was tabled at that meeting and circulated to members who were to consult with their colleagues about it. Mr Brownlee and Mr Tisch presumably did not consult Mr Carter about it 2 weeks ago. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Principal Family Court Judge—Comments on Family Violence 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Principal Family Court Judge—Comments on Family Violence 
[Volume:630;Page:2192] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Judy Turner seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 comments made by the Principal Family Court Judge about family violence in New Zealand. There is no ministerial responsibility for comments made by a member of the judiciary nor indeed for judicial decisions. Therefore I cannot accept this application and it is declined.
Urgent Debates Declined — Principal Family Court Judge—Comments on Family Violence 
Urgent Debates Declined — Principal Family Court Judge—Comments on Family Violence 
[Volume:630;Page:2192] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Principal Family Court Judge—Comments on Family Violence 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Judy Turner seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 comments made by the Principal Family Court Judge about family violence in New Zealand. There is no ministerial responsibility for comments made by a member of the judiciary nor indeed for judicial decisions. Therefore I cannot accept this application and it is declined.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2191] 
12.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What quantity of greenhouse gases will be emitted into the atmosphere as a result of Solid Energy’s mines at Stockton and Happy Valley in Westland and what are the implications of this for New Zealand’s commitments under the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 If the two mines reach their production targets and if all the coal is burnt then the answer is about $6.5 million tonnes per annum most of which will come from Stockton and a little from Happy Valley. The implications of this for New Zealand’s commitments under the Kyoto Protocol depend on how much of the coal is exported before it is combusted and in the case of those two mines it is somewhere in excess of 90 percent. 
Metiria Turei 
: What quantity of greenhouse gases will be emitted as a result of the use of coal in the Marsden B power station if that proceeds; and does the Minister agree that this is in direct conflict with the Government’s commitment to renewable energy and to reducing emissions from the energy sector? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The situation with coal and electricity in this country is that coal provides our system with some resilience. We use rather little of it. Our total thermal emissions in this country are around 9 percent of our total emissions and therefore appropriately they should receive about 9 percent of the attention. The point of the New Zealand electricity system is that it was and is renewably based and increasingly so. 
Metiria Turei 
: What quantity of greenhouse gases will be emitted from the conversion of forestry to pasture as in the central North Island by Landcorp Farming Ltd and the Waikatea Station by the Bayly Trust and does he agree that there is an urgent need for Government policy to incentivise maintaining forest cover as proposed by the Greens’ paper  
Turn Down the Heat 
? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I congratulate the Greens on their paper which I had the pleasure of reading over the weekend. I do not agree with all of it I might say but I do think the vast majority of it is really refreshing. Some of it is thoroughly useful and the ideas are welcome. I am sorry that other parties around Parliament do not seem to bother to do that especially National given its activity in the 1990s. However the answer to the member’s question is that for every hectare cleared and turned into farmland the carbon tonnage cost is something like 800 tonnes. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that the examples of Stockton Happy Valley Marsden B and forest clearance for pasture demonstrate why it is so vital that climate change be considered under the Resource Management Act and will his Government be supporting Jeanette Fitzsimons’ Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill tomorrow in the House? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The easiest way to answer that question is to answer the last part of it and the answer is yes.
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2186] 
8.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How many superannuitants and veterans will benefit from changes to the rate of New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pensions from 1 April? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 More than 485000 New Zealand superannuitants and over 9000 veterans pensioners—that is more than 494000 older New Zealanders—will benefit from changes to the rate of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension from 1 April 2006. 
Barbara Stewart 
: By how much will the entitlements of recipients of New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension increase as of 1 April? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The rate of superannuation is increasing by 3.16 percent. That means an increase of $646.88 per year for a married couple and an increase of $420.68 per year for a single person living alone. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Is this the first change made to superannuation wage relativity by the Labour-led Government? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No. The last National Government dropped the wage relationship for the married couple rate of New Zealand superannuation in 1998 from 65 percent of the net average wage to 60 percent. This affected the superannuation rates in 1999. The Labour-led Government restored the 65 percent floor from 1 April 2000.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2184] 
6.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What reports if any has he received on New Zealand’s presence at the CeBIT information technology exhibition in Germany? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 I have seen two reports. The first in the  
Australian Financial Review 
 states that the Australian exhibition was “overshadowed by the imposing presence of New Zealand’s Government-backed contingent”. The second in the  
Dominion Post 
 reported the strongly positive views of the New Zealand firms which said they had “scored good leads among potential partners customers and distributors.” This was an excellent Government initiative well-organised by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. 
Dianne Yates 
: What is the importance of New Zealand’s presence at the fair why did the Government provide financial backing for it and what are the benefits? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: CeBIT is the world’s largest information technology fair. It provided the opportunity for New Zealand which has a reputation in Germany and Europe as being a very competitive and effective producer of agriculture to successfully raise its profile also as a high-tech country that is innovative and has world-class capability. The Government assistance facilitated the presence of our generally small information and communications technology firms which were able to get to know the international market showcase their technology network and do business—and some of those firms have entered into multimillion dollar contracts.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2182] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I wish to make a correction to an answer I gave in question No. 6 last sitting day concerning public-private partnerships and to apologise to you Madam Speaker for failing to raise it ahead of question No. 1 today. In my answer I referred to a paper authored by Mr Katz on the Treasury website. In fact that paper will not be on the website until this Friday 31 March.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2179] 
2.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: How many borrowers will save under the interest-free student loan policy coming into effect on 1 April 2006? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Around 470000 New Zealanders will benefit. Around 350000 will get an immediate benefit from the policy and around 120000 people who are already studying interest-free under Labour’s 2000 policy will benefit when they finish studying. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has the Minister received any reports suggesting alternative approaches to setting interest rates for student loans? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Over recent years I have received many such reports. One report states: “Interest has to be charged because you are using taxpayer money.” A second states: “Although the total of student debt has risen to over $7 billion it is small when compared with private sector debt.” A third condemns student loans that will take many people decades to pay off and a fourth highlights aspects of the previous scheme that are unfair. The first two reports are from Dr Donald Brash the third is from new National MP Paula Bennett and the fourth from Dr Lockwood Smith. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Social Development will incur additional costs of $3 million to process the extra applications for student loans and can he advise the House how much the new information technology system that the Inland Revenue Department requires for student loans will cost? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm the first figure. I do not have the second figure in front of me although I think it is fair to say that the Inland Revenue Department was considering its information technology systems in any case. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that some wealthy parents who would normally have paid for their offsprings’ education at university will now with interest-free loans advise their children to borrow and put the money in the bank to earn significant interest; if the Minister is aware of that how will he cope with that sort of scenario? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There have always been some wealthy parents who fail to meet their parental responsibilities in those respects. All I can say in response to that is that on evidence so far the number is less than what was forecast to be the case.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-General 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-General 
[Volume:630;Page:2177] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Denis Marshall QSO Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat to the left of the Chair.
Visitors — Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-General 
Visitors — Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-General 
[Volume:630;Page:2177] 
Tuesday 28 March 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-General 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Denis Marshall QSO Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat to the left of the Chair.
Tremain Chris: Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tremain Chris: Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2341] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Growing up in this country my mother and father taught me a few values like do-it-yourself giving it a go “Hard work is actually good for you.” and “You’re there to compete to win.” and they taught me that self-responsibility was something one should be proud of. Gradually we have seen these values dissipate in our nation. The new Building Act has taken care of the do-it-yourself attitude the occupational safety and health legislation is busily taking away the give-it-a-go attitude and Working for Families is quietly taking away the incentive to work in this country. Now self-responsibility is further under threat with this bill. The Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill is an attack on personal responsibility. As a result and as Phil Heatley quite rightly said National will not be supporting this bill. 
What does this legislation set out to do? It sets out to protect tenants against personal liability for major damage to premises that they played no part in causing. There are two key phrases: “major damage” and that “they played no part in causing” the damage. I will come back to those. 
Debate interrupted.
Mark Ron: Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2336] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise for interrupting at this point but during the debate some comments were made and I actually was out of line with Metiria Turei. I do believe that she totally misunderstood what I said. But I just wish again to apologise to her for any offence caused.
Vote: Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2336] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.referred to Law and Order Committee
Vote: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2321] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.referred to Local Government and Environment Committee
Hobbs Marian: Westpac New Zealand Bill — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Westpac New Zealand Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2307] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 First of all I want to thank my parliamentary colleagues for their support for this private bill. I also realise that I did not declare at the start that I too am a Westpac customer so I lay that on the table. I am looking for detailed work to be done on the bill by the select committee although I do not think it will necessarily be the detailed work that my colleagues Sue Bradford and Hone Harawira are asking for. However I do commend Westpac and the people who have drafted this legislation for setting out in clause 12 to provide tremendous protection for the bank’s staff. Too often in these situations staff conditions may change—those are protected in the bill as are the bank’s customers and the community. For the care that has gone into the drafting of this rather difficult legislation I commend them. I thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and I thank the House for its support for this bill. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.referred to Finance and Expenditure Committee
Donnelly Brian: Westpac New Zealand Bill — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Westpac New Zealand Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2305] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take only a very brief call largely to explain that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill and also to give some reason for that. We believe the bill actually falls very much into the compass of New Zealand First philosophy and its raison d’être. We believe that some of the policies based around the acolytes of people like Roger Douglas and indeed Don Brash actually put the economic sovereignty of New Zealand at risk in times gone by and this is a move in the right direction to retrieve some of that economic sovereignty that was lost in the past. 
 I listened very carefully to the contribution made by Sue Bradford and I have to say I do not necessarily believe that the bill will change the business practice of Westpac New Zealand Ltd. However if the bill shuts up the taxation loophole that she mentioned in her speech then certainly it will be getting New Zealand First’s vote. We also take on board the point made by John Key that this move will mean that the parent company in Australia will not be able to take out New Zealand assets for example if it happens to get into trouble or fall over. New Zealand First will be supporting the bill to go through to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and we will listen to all the arguments that are put forward there. Fundamentally the real reason we are supporting the bill is that it is in line with New Zealand First’s philosophy of retaining New Zealand’s economic sovereignty.
Key John: Westpac New Zealand Bill — First Reading 
Key John: Westpac New Zealand Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2302] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party not to make a long address but just to say that the National Party will support this legislation. For the purposes of good order and pecuniary interest I declare that I am a customer of Westpac and I have been for 39 years since my mother opened an account for me in Canterbury and I got a passbook with I think a squirrel on the front. I have had that account with Westpac for 39 long and loyal years. 
The member for Wellington Central has made quite clear the purposes of the bill around the need for local incorporation and the need for Westpac to move beyond what is currently a branch structure in New Zealand. I understand that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand supports the bill and is likely to make a submission when it goes to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
Although I understand the position of the Reserve Bank on the ability to quarantine and understand what is a New Zealand asset—which becomes the legal position in the event of a New Zealand bank failure—I am a bit suspicious about what systemic bank failure may mean and what this legislation may achieve. In my own view in the event of the collapse of Westpac New Zealand the parent company would in all probability bail the bank out for reputational reasons if not for others. Anyway in that case it would still be easy to understand what the New Zealand assets were. 
This bill is in a sense forced on Westpac because the Reserve Bank wants to make sure that in the event of a parent company collapse the parent company cannot take New Zealand assets out of New Zealand and put them into Australia or into other parts of the banking group. I think we are somewhat deluded if we do not think that that scenario would not only lead to a systemic crisis across potentially all the other banks in Australia which run 85 percent of the banking system in New Zealand but also be a widespread issue for the Governments on both sides of the Tasman to deal with. I simply make the point as I have to the Reserve Bank that we need to look only at the Asian debt crisis—at how far away it was and at its impact on the credit spreads and the various financial indicators of the New Zealand banking system—to see the effect that a very distant financial crisis can have on New Zealand. 
That said I say National understands the legislation and what is driving it and we support its first reading.