edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
[Volume:653;Page:2577] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise this issue now because the House is about to embark upon an adjournment. We are on the point of completing our first two sessions of the year with this new sound system and although I think it works particularly well in most cases some problems are becoming apparent during those times when there are heated exchanges across the House and a lot of noise. Because we no longer have our little earpieces it is often very difficult to hear the particular member who might be speaking. Speakers’ voices tend to get drowned out in a lot of extraneous noise. I wonder whether during the adjournment some consideration can be given either to repositioning microphones or to doing something with the technology to make it easier for us to hear. Over the weeks that this new system has been in place we have often lost the capacity to hear a Minister or a member asking or answering a question against a background of loud noise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for raising the issue. It has been my observation that what tends to make hearing difficult at this end of the Chamber is a background of noise. I often find that it is not interjections that cause problems; it is private discussions around the Chamber that get quite loud and make it difficult to hear. I do not want to pursue the issue now but if other members have the same concern as the Hon Peter Dunne they should please raise them with my office. If there is a major concern we will investigate it further.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
[Volume:653;Page:2577] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members thank you. I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith has raised a perfectly fair point of order. In fact yesterday members will recollect that I was troubled by that very issue of validation of alleged quotes in supplementary questions where there is no opportunity to validate them. However at the same time—and I am very happy to give it further thought—it is certainly a worthwhile point. The point Dr Cullen makes is also a very valid point—that is the Minister does have the last say. The Minister can easily say—and it is a perfectly proper answer—“I cannot recollect saying those words; they may not be correct.” That is a perfectly valid answer. 
The dilemma I get into is when the quote is totally ignored in the answer. Having said that I am very happy to give the issue further reflection because my interest in Ministers being held to account properly in this House does not hinge on that particular issue and I do not want it to become a major problem. But I do take into account all the points raised by members. I think they are all useful points.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
[Volume:653;Page:2576] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to raise briefly two points. The first I think was touched on by Dr Cullen. Following advice from I think you and me the Minister actually got it right in the end and answered in a way that was appropriate. The second point that I would make is to make it absolutely clear that I was quoting directly from the report of the New Zealand Press Association. I did not ever indicate that it was a quote from Dr Smith. I quoted directly from the report.
[Volume:653;Page:2576] 
I accept your ruling that the idea that the word “answer” is neutral as is suggested in  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 is no longer going to stand but by the same token if a Minister does address a question does give an answer that is related to the question then it surely satisfies the test that Dr Cullen puts on it. I am sure that some consideration of this matter over the coming days would be beneficial. As you are going through the exercise of requiring Parliament to be more accountable this matter is something you might like to consider as well.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
[Volume:653;Page:2576] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that is exactly the problem that we got into yesterday. The Hon Nick Smith gave an answer. He gave effectively the only answer he could at the time knowing that the quote mentioned in the supplementary question was not quite right. Not having instant recall of the exact quote he gave an answer. It was subsequently ruled to be inadequate and an additional supplementary question was given. I think that is the problem we got into yesterday. It is quite correct for Dr Cullen to suggest that the matter is in the Minister’s hands but all that is in the Minister’s hands is the ability to give an answer.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
[Volume:653;Page:2576] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 The Minister raises an important point and one that is worthy of consideration. It seems to me that the answer lies in Ministers’ hands in that particular kind of example because it is an important example of an unauthenticated supplementary question. But if the Minister is unsure whether the question is based upon what the Minister actually said—and we all have some sympathy with the notion that one does not remember everything one has said and one can never be sure it has been reported correctly in the second instance in any case—then the Minister is open to giving an answer that is simply along the lines of: “I’m not sure I agree with the member that that is what I said. I would prefer to check the quotation before giving the answer.” That directly answers the question without getting the Minister into trouble about whether that is in fact an accurate quotation.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2575] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 In light of that statement from the Leader of the House perhaps I could ask whether there is any intention to take politically non-controversial business on the evening of 29 April as some of my colleagues may not wish to participate in the events of the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2575] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House will adjourn at 5 p.m. today for the Easter adjournment. When it resumes on 28 April priority will be given to the Committee stage of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill the first readings listed on the Order Paper and the first readings of bills to be introduced today. On Wednesday 29 April it is anticipated that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen will have time set aside by the House for his valedictory speech.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2575] 
Thursday 9 April 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House will adjourn at 5 p.m. today for the Easter adjournment. When it resumes on 28 April priority will be given to the Committee stage of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill the first readings listed on the Order Paper and the first readings of bills to be introduced today. On Wednesday 29 April it is anticipated that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen will have time set aside by the House for his valedictory speech. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 In light of that statement from the Leader of the House perhaps I could ask whether there is any intention to take politically non-controversial business on the evening of 29 April as some of my colleagues may not wish to participate in the events of the House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I anticipate that at about 5.30 p.m. on 29 April there will indeed be a controversial statement delivered to the House. In fact we would be most disappointed if it did not have a degree of that attached to it. In essence I think the member can rest assured that his colleagues will be able to join him in enjoying any festivities that he may provide. Of course I warn them that former Ministers of Finance are not notorious for their generosity in these matters.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:652;Page:1693] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That would take some time. I can only suggest that all members look at the Government orders of the day on the Order Paper that will be provided to all members every day. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I had also referred to the bills being introduced which of course are not Government orders of the day yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member might wait until he is called before making such an interjection in the House.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:652;Page:1693] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House would be kind enough to indicate which bills are likely to be set down for first reading next week or introduced.
Guy Nathan: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — First Reading 
Guy Nathan: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1743] 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 I wish to make a very good contribution to the debate on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill which is a very important bill that is before the House this evening. 
I take offence at the previous speaker the junior Opposition whip Steve Chadwick standing up and saying that we should be focusing on crime and law and order issues. She has obviously forgotten about the 100-day programme that we have just implemented. With your consent Mr Deputy Speaker I think it is appropriate that the junior Opposition whip realises what this Government has achieved to do with law and order. I think it was a cheek that she stood up and berated this Government when we have been working on a very good plan to make our communities safer. We have introduced legislation to remove the right of repeat criminals to parole; we have introduced legislation to crack down on gangs which that former Minister said we are not doing enough of; we have toughened up the bail laws; and we have been extremely busy on youth crime—legislation to do with that is passing through the select committee. Legislation to do with DNA testing of criminals who come before the police is also moving through the select committee. There is a whole lot more but I do not want to take all of this precious time to enlighten the junior Opposition whip as to how successful we have been during our 100-day programme. 
I take some time to commend the honourable Minister Richard Worth for bringing this bill to the House. It will tidy up the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Acts. It is a very very important bill that has been sitting around on the Order Paper since July of last year. This Government which has implemented a 100-day programme is getting on with the issues of the day. This is an important bill. When we think about it we see that this bill will be very very important for all those electorates that National holds. This bill affects the electorates of Shane Ardern Chris Auchinvole Paula Bennett Jacqui Dean Bill English Nikki Kaye Colin King Lockwood Smith and Jonathan Young. Labour has very few electorates in rural communities. This important bill will address concerns that have been raised by these electorate MPs in their own patches. 
This very important bill will be referred to the Primary Production Committee which is chaired by Shane Ardern. The committee has a bit of a work stream ahead of it and it will also have to work hard on this bill. The benefits of this legislation are considerable; there will be real benefits right across the whole of the country including the formalisation of the lease of the Port Chalmers Bowling Club and the securing of the future of the Otago Aero Club. 
We heard from one of the new MPs Clare Curran—one of the “listies”. She stood up and made a contribution for about 30 seconds. 
Debate interrupted.
Chadwick Steve: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1742] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 Here we are at 6 minutes to 6 on a Thursday evening and the Government is filibustering on a bill that is non-controversial and that is going to go to a select committee—the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. 
The Government is obsessed with gangs and crime and on the Order Paper there is a bill called the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill yet that bill is not considered important enough to debate. I think New Zealand needs to notice that this Government is full of rhetoric about getting hard on gangs and getting hard on criminal offending yet tonight it puts up—to filibuster and giggle about—a bill that is a tidy-up of all of the work the previous Government did. Government members are giggling away on clauses in the bill in order to waste the time and resources of the House when they ought to be getting on to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill or the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. 
It is an obvious indication that this Government is simply not organised. Its members are in total disarray. They are not ready to speak tonight on the liquor legislation so what are they doing? They are trifling with the House’s time. It is an appalling waste. When Labour was in Government we never did this; our speakers were always ready to go. They are not ready; they are a shambles. 
Tonight we are wasting time on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. I must say that the previous Minister for Land Information David Parker made sure he did the detailed work in the build-up to this bill. It is an appalling indictment that at this stage of Parliament—just after the first 100 days—Government members have forgotten the rhetoric of a bright future of cleaning up the gangs and of cleaning up the criminal offending and that they have put this sort of detailed bill on to the Order Paper. It is an appalling way to end what has been a very successful week for the Opposition.
Curran Clare: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — First Reading 
Curran Clare: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1741] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I rise to support the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. In the interests of brevity I think that all there is to say is that we should be congratulating the previous Minister for Land Information David Parker.
Mallard Trevor: Unit Titles Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Unit Titles Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1729] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I supported Lianne Dalziel when she did the work on the Unit Titles Bill I supported it when the Labour Government introduced it and I still support it.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1707] 
12.  
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Has he received any reports about oil production commencing in the Maari field? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Yes I have seen a report that the Maari oilfield off Taranaki has started to produce oil. The field is expected to yield 50 million barrels of oil in its 10 to 15-year life producing revenue for the Crown of approximately $1.5 billion in both royalties and taxes. 
Jonathan Young 
: What are the benefits of oil production in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are many benefits to New Zealand other than the royalties and taxies I mentioned. In the case of the Maari field about 200 people have worked offshore during its installation and drilling operations with a further 60 people expected to be employed in the longer term as the years progress. The project has also employed engineering firms in Taranaki and it has given a boost to many services in the area ensuring a positive employment effect.
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1705] 
10.  
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he have concerns about the operation of the Government’s retail deposit guarantee scheme; if so what are those concerns? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government stands behind the retail deposit guarantee scheme but I am concerned to ensure that it is not putting taxpayers’ money at undue risk. Therefore I have asked officials to have a look at the scheme to ensure that we are managing the risks taken by the taxpayer as intended. 
John Boscawen 
: Why does the Government’s retail deposit scheme subsidise finance companies some of which have already gone broke when the Reserve Bank recommended that finance companies should be charged for the true cost and true risk of the taxpayer guarantee? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In hindsight it is not difficult to see that aspects of the scheme may have been designed in a way that dealt better with the risk that taxpayers were taking. However I stress that at the time decisions were made—back I think in October last year—there was a premium on providing depositors with the kind of guarantee that would prevent a run on finance companies or on a bank and in the trade-off between getting a guarantee in place and getting it perfect I think they probably made about as good a decision as they could.
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1699] 
5.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Has he received a report into Immigration New Zealand’s Pacific division? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes I have received the Ernst and Young Pacific division report and it is being released via the Beehive website this afternoon. This latest review has found severe deficiencies across Immigration New Zealand’s Pacific division. It paints a damning picture of a poorly performing service that was poorly led and lacked a clear strategic mandate under the previous Government. The division has become isolated from the rest of Immigration New Zealand over time effectively acting in an autonomous manner which is out of keeping with accepted practice. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What were the findings of the Ernst and Young report? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The report detailed serious concerns about divisional leadership that lacked accountability and transparency failed to observe proper process and created a fiefdom mentality. It described serious concerns about strategic direction under Labour with no clarity over the divisions roles and responsibilities. The division’s management was poor resulting in ongoing deterioration of service delivery major inefficiencies huge application backlogs and concerns regarding financial processes and compliance. It has not served Pacific people well. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Who was responsible for the establishment of the pacific division? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The pacific division was the ill-conceived creation of the last Labour Government and was set up by a former head of the Immigration Service Mary Anne Thompson. It was never given a clear mandate by Labour. The leadership has been poor and the performance suboptimal. Despite knowing about problems with the Pacific division the last Government failed to take appropriate action. The mess described in this latest report is unacceptable. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What action is the Minister taking in relation to the pacific division? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I have directed the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour to consider reintegrating all the activities of the pacific division back into the core of Immigration New Zealand. This will ensure that there are clear lines of accountability. I will appoint an independent adviser to report to me on the chief executive’s actions in relation to the Pacific division and to monitor service performance.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1698] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a member’s bill that could next week if the Government adopted it extend the date for full funding of accident compensation to 2019 avoiding the increases that so concern the Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Tremain Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tremain Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1696] 
2.  
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What reports has he received on “shonky figures” in ACC? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have not so much as said a word and I face a barracking of voices from the Opposition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sure the honourable Minister is perfectly capable of dealing with that. It was clearly a fairly political question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Labour’s describing the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on accident compensation as “shonky” is a bit rich in the very week in which it has been confirmed that Labour’s Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update 2008 hid $1.5 billion in liabilities in a breach of the Public Finance Act. 
Chris Tremain 
: What reports has the Minister received on taking responsibility for misleading reports? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The signed statement by Labour in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update 2008 says: “I accept overall responsibility for the integrity of the disclosures … in accordance with the requirements of the Public Finance Act 1989.” and that all material fiscal implications have been disclosed. They were not. Labour now refuses to accept any responsibilities despite at least two of its former Ministers knowing of that $1.5 billion of liability—the largest breach on record of the Public Finance Act. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister intend to proceed with accident compensation levy increases that would cost the average family $2400 per annum as he said to the House yesterday or was that alarmist talk to soften up people to the need for unnecessary cuts to entitlements? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No. This Government is not going to proceed with levy increases of that size; they are untenable. They are untenable but they are the legacy that Labour left through its poor management of accident compensation. We have the job of fixing it and saving accident compensation and we are up to that challenge. 
Chris Tremain 
: What would be the effect on the accident compensation scheme’s solvency ratio of deferring full funding? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: If we adopted the approach that members opposite adopt to the challenges we face in accident compensation I am advised that the solvency ratios would decline all the way to zero within a period of 7 years. That is untenable and that is why simply changing the full funding date is not enough; we will have to have a more comprehensive package of change to secure the future of accident compensation.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:652;Page:1693] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 10 March the Government intends to make progress on Government orders of the day and on other bills to be introduced during the week. The second reading of the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill will be taken on Thursday 12 March provided that the Finance and Expenditure Committee is able to report back on Monday 9 March. The following week will be an adjournment.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — World Trade Organization—Director-General 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — World Trade Organization—Director-General 
[Volume:652;Page:1693] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Director-General of the World Trade Organization Mr Pascal Lamy is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr Pascal Lamy accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:652;Page:1693] 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 10 March the Government intends to make progress on Government orders of the day and on other bills to be introduced during the week. The second reading of the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill will be taken on Thursday 12 March provided that the Finance and Expenditure Committee is able to report back on Monday 9 March. The following week will be an adjournment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House would be kind enough to indicate which bills are likely to be set down for first reading next week or introduced. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That would take some time. I can only suggest that all members look at the Government orders of the day on the Order Paper that will be provided to all members every day. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I had also referred to the bills being introduced which of course are not Government orders of the day yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member might wait until he is called before making such an interjection in the House.
Visitors — World Trade Organization—Director-General 
Visitors — World Trade Organization—Director-General 
[Volume:652;Page:1693] 
Thursday 5 March 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
World Trade Organization—Director-General 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Director-General of the World Trade Organization Mr Pascal Lamy is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr Pascal Lamy accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2779] 
3.  
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What commercial risks does the Crown face and how do these relate to public services? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 In recent years the Crown has built up almost $30 billion worth of investments in financial markets. Gains and losses on these investments are eventually borne by taxpayers as we saw recently with the $300 million blowout in accident compensation expenditure. It is important that the Government monitor those investments closely and make sensible decisions about the risks it is taking with taxpayers’ money because when things go wrong those losses could affect the Government’s ability to continue to deliver public services. 
Amy Adams 
: How have returns on Crown assets this year tracked against expenditure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: For the 8 months ended February 2009 the losses on the Crown’s financial assets have totalled $9.848 billion relative to the projections made in the pre-election update—that is those assets have lost $9.8 billion in value in the time since September. The majority of this shortfall—some $5.5 billion—relates to losses in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. 
Amy Adams 
: What would be the consequences if those losses were to recur? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The scale of those losses of almost $10 billion in 8 months is staggering. A recurrence of those losses in the future is an option that the Crown cannot really tolerate so the Government will have to make some sensible decisions that weigh up the balance of borrowing money to invest in still risky financial markets against the long-term benefit of the Crown’s continuing to build up its financial assets.
Dyson Ruth: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2807] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to speak in the third reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill which is another Labour Government bill. It is delightful to see the National Government yet again supporting legislation from its predecessor in Government. One does wonder what we would be doing if Simon Power were not in the House and we got to the end of all the Labour Government bills that have been brought forward into this Parliament. All we have seen is the former Government’s bills and Simon Power’s bills. I am glad that Simon has been so diligent and shown that at least somebody in that Government can do some work. 
In fact it was so obvious during the second reading of this very bill that it was a Labour bill. The National members got up and started claiming credit for this amendment bill then we realised that David Parker’s name was still on the bill. They had not actually got round to taking David Parker’s name off the bill during the second reading. Either way it is good to have cross-party consensus on a Thursday afternoon for protecting these improvements to the original legislation: the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. 
The bill does four very straightforward things: it makes it easier for whistleblowers to bring serious concerns of wrongdoing to light which is a very important provision; it makes it easier for organisations to investigate those concerns and allegations effectively; it enhances the role of the Ombudsmen; and it extends the definitions of “employees” to include volunteers and also as my friend and colleague Chris Hipkins pointed out to include the new Public Service - paid contractors who are acting as political advisers in the offices of National-Act Government Ministers. They are political hacks appointed by the Minister of Finance through the Minister’s office and paid for by the Public Service. This amendment legislation will now cover them as well. This bill is well worth supporting not just because of that latter provision that I mentioned but for many reasons. I commend its speedy progress to the House.
Barker Rick: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2804] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank the member for that and I will certainly give consideration to a considered ruling. But I think Mr Kidd would be amazed to find that his ruling was interpreted as allowing debate on some itinerary of global travel by a Speaker’s tour a company collapse somewhere and goodness knows what else that we have had thrown in. A third reading is about the bill and the bill itself but I will take the member’s advice and bring back a ruling.
Dunne Peter: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2804] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am grateful for your reference to Mr Speaker Algie’s ruling in 1961—Speaker’s ruling 116/7—but I also note Speaker’s ruling 118/3 by Mr Speaker Kidd in 1998 where he makes a comment to the effect that “if a bill was taken part by part thereby generalising discussion in committee it follows that debate on the third reading will be somewhat broader.” On the face of it that ruling could be seen to be in conflict with the provisions of Speaker’s ruling 116/7 and indeed also of Speaker’s ruling 117/3. It may be time for you Mr Assistant Speaker to make a more considered ruling about where Mr Speaker Kidd’s ruling sits in relation to the earlier ruling. It has certainly been my long understanding that the Algie principle is the one that applied—that the third reading debate was a very limited debate about the bill as it emerged from the Committee of the whole House—but it could be argued that Mr Speaker Kidd has broadened that definition somewhat and I think it might be timely for you to give some consideration to the relationship between those two rulings and whether Mr Kidd’s ruling overturns the earlier one or is subservient to it.
Hayes John: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hayes John: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2803] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I seek the permission of the House to table a letter from Paul Ash chief executive of Target Pest Enterprises to Forest Green Ltd dated 30 November 2005. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought to table a letter. Is there any objection? There is no objection; the letter may be tabled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Barker Rick: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2803] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that his time has expired. I draw the attention of members to a ruling by Speaker Algie in 1961 that members must confine themselves to the general principles of a bill as it has emerged from the Committee. We have now had two speeches that have gone well beyond that and I indicate to the House— 
John Hayes 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Excuse me I am just ruling on this matter. I ask members to be mindful. There is no problem about members making comments to the side in support of the bill but when we get speeches that are entirely about matters completely outside the bill I tell members that in future I will in fact haul them up and direct them back to its contents.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2789] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 You will be aware Mr Speaker that when the Standing Orders changed—I think in 1996 or possibly before then—we moved away from a strict 45-minute period in which not all the questions were asked to a system where all of them were asked and at least attempts were made to answer some of them. Some of us used to enjoy the old system where questions were left never to be asked but I can remember Jenny Shipley being very very worried about one regarding the elasticity— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the House has heard enough on that point of order.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2789] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Far be it from me to raise this matter as I have been here only a short period of time compared with yourself but I want to make sure that you have not left out any questions.
Goodhew Jo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Goodhew Jo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2785] 
10.  
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to create employment opportunities at a local level and particularly for young people? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Government and the Mayors Task Force for Jobs signed a memorandum of understanding to tackle common issues around unemployment. This extends the relationship from the way it was previously; it makes it meaningful. It is a memorandum about how we will support our young people in unemployment and it extends into other areas. It is another initiative that comes out of the Prime Minister’s Job Summit. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What is the Government doing to help medium-sized businesses that are struggling to keep staff? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Last week we announced an extension to the Job Support Scheme for businesses with 50 to 100 staff—another Job Summit success story. This extends the scheme allowing companies to operate a 9-day working fortnight in an effort to save jobs. Now an additional 2000 firms and 140000 staff are eligible. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Has the Minister had any updates on unemployment figures? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Next week the household labour force survey announcement will give an official rate of unemployment. However latest unemployment benefit numbers paint a gloomy picture. Numbers on the unemployment benefit were up by 95 percent in March over the same month last year and we expect that the figures will get worse. But I can say that Work and Income is doing an outstanding job at triaging people through and I think that number would have been a lot higher if it were not for the work the department is doing. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How can the Minister reconcile the approach to job creation with the Government’s decision to dismiss nearly 1000 public servants? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There is no dismissing of public servants. My own department has been doing a value-for-money process that was started by Labour 2 years ago. In briefing the incoming Minister it looked at some changes it could make. I think I would like to thank the previous Government for starting that process that we can now follow through. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: What importance does the Minister place on the 2008 New Zealand Skills Strategy and what is she going to do to implement its recommendations in order to enhance the real employment opportunities for young people? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: With the Skills Strategy this Government is looking at some of those initiatives that fit in the current situation. We are in a very different time from what we were in just 1 year ago. This Government is fully committed to upskilling our workforce and upskilling those who find themselves unemployed. We are dealing with the now and with the future and we will be doing that very conscientiously.
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2783] 
8.  
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: Does he stand by the statement made by his chief press officer that “We were looking for quality not quantity.” when it came to employing staff in the Beehive; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
on behalf of the  
Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: Yes. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How does the Minister justify the fact that the number of Beehive staff earning over $100000 has more than doubled since National took office especially given that his Government is sacking other public servants and refusing to give those who remain a pay rise; or is this just another example of one rule for National and another rule for everybody else? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The current Government is employing 20 fewer staff in the Beehive than the previous Government was and all of those staff are doing a great job. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How does the Minister justify the employment of private purchase advisers in ministerial offices who are handpicked by the Minister of Finance to effectively act as spies for him in Ministers’ offices given Ministers’ earlier claims that the Government was reducing expenditure on the number of core Government administrative staff; or will he admit that the Government is simply using smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that it is feathering its own nest? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The use of purchase advisers has been very successful for two reasons. The first is that when the National Government came in and discovered that such a mess had been left behind by Labour we needed the assistance of people who could take an objective view. The other reason is that the previous Government had run a brutal command-and-control regime out of the ninth floor and therefore no one in the Public Service could make a decision. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Can the Minister assure the House that the engagement of purchase advisers in ministerial offices at the direction of the Minister of Finance will comply with all Public Service requirements for the contracting of staff and that these contractors will be covered by the  
Public Service Code of Conduct 
; if not how does he reconcile that fact with the National Party’s manifesto promises of “Restoring Political Neutrality” and to “Ensure that public service departments are not used for party political gain.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister of Finance to Ministers instructing them on the engagement of purchase advisers. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2782] 
7.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 on behalf of  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What reports if any has he received on the Civil Aviation Authority’s accommodation costs? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I have received advice that the Civil Aviation Authority has decided to move from its present accommodation in Petone to brand new premises in Wellington’s central business district just down the road from Parliament at the end of next year. The cost of the relocation will be about $8.5 million and will result in rentals much much greater than the current accommodation. This move was decided before the election and supported by the previous Minister of Transport in the previous Labour Government. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What action did the Minister take after learning that the Civil Aviation Authority’s costs were going to increase so much? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I told the Civil Aviation Authority that I felt that spending so much money on relocation and increased rentals was not acceptable. I have tested the options—to make changes to these arrangements or to not go through with this move—over a period of time with the chair of the Civil Aviation Authority. Unfortunately commitments have been made with the support of the previous Government that are unable to be changed. Roughly 90 percent of the Civil Aviation Authority’s revenue comes from industry fees and charges. I am not impressed that these costs are being incurred to this level and at this time when all New Zealanders are having to tighten their belts in the current global economic recession.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2781] 
6.  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Is it Government policy to cap but not cut the core Public Service? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 No. It is Government policy to cap core Government administration. 
Grant Robertson 
: How does the Minister reconcile that answer with the statement John Key made to the Public Service Association before the election that public services would be capped but not cut by National; and will he be taking the Prime Minister aside to give him a bollocking for that statement? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Quite easily; no. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why is it acceptable for Ministers to hire 36 people being paid more than $100000 to work in their offices and to force departments to pay the cost of highly paid consultants who work directly for Ministers when the rest of the Public Service is being cut; or is it a case of one law for Ministers and one law for everybody else? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is certainly my understanding that the National Government by way of example is employing fewer press secretaries than the previous Labour Government did. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Why is the Government capping the size of core Government administration? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Our priority is to grow front-line services that directly benefit New Zealanders. This will over time restore a better balance between the number of people working in core Government administration and the numbers working on the front line to support New Zealanders. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why did the Minister say on 26 March that a cap does not represent a cut to the Public Service when National has overseen nearly a thousand proposed job cuts in the Public Service with more to come; or is there no low that the Minister will go to when it comes to the number of public servants? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: In the current economic environment it is entirely reasonable to expect that State services resources will move to the front line. Chief executives are making these decisions because they are realigning their organisations to the new Government’s priorities around improved front-line services and because like most organisations in New Zealand they are working towards living within their means. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table a speech given by John Key to the Public Service Association congress last year on 24 September in which he promises to cap but not cut public services. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a speech. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.