edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Points of Order — Urgent Debates—Criteria 
Points of Order — Urgent Debates—Criteria 
[Volume:631;Page:2832] 
Points of Order 
Urgent Debates—Criteria 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you would consider giving the House a written consideration of what you think constitutes the aspect of “importance” when it comes to snap debates. Given the way in which the issue around the Telecom leak has progressed over the last number of days I think it would be helpful for us to know what you would consider the matter of importance to be and what criteria you would use. We note that you indicated last week that the request for a debate met a number of conditions but fell short on that point. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I suggest strongly to you that that would not be an appropriate course of action for you to follow for a very simple reason. On this matter the decision by the Speaker is final and there is no possibility of debate around that decision. While there is a set of criteria that must be met in the first instance—whether it involves the responsibility of a Minister etc.—at the end of the day the question of whether time should be set aside by the House is a matter for decision solely by you. If you start laying out supposedly objective criteria as to the means by which that decision has been arrived at it could be for only one purpose—for people to question the application of those criteria. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Please accept that we are not relitigating your decision. We are aware that at some point the State Services Commission will bring out a report that may or may not be presented to Parliament. It will most certainly be in the public arena. At that point we would need to know whether that constituted a matter of significant importance such that it would merit a debate in the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contributions. As I indicated at the time the decision was made after consideration of both the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. For the assistance of members however I suggest that they refer to Speakers’ rulings 165/2 through to 165/6 and also 166/1 and 166/5. Of course I will give serious consideration to any application that is made for an urgent debate.
Coleman Jonathan: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Coleman Jonathan: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:2976] 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be speaking in the Committee stage of the Coroners Bill and I think that many of my colleagues who spoke before me tonight summed up many of the issues very well. But one thing we need to do in the course of this debate is pay tribute to the men and women who have served as coroners in New Zealand for many years. I know that this bill seeks to put some structure around what we might call the coronial profession but I think it is fair to say that the country has been very well served by the people who have carried out the coronial function in a very professional manner for decades and decades. 
If we look at the people who have been doing this task we see that they are people from the police force and the legal profession and of course medical practitioners. It behoves us well to recognise their contribution. Many of those people have had other professional obligations. They have served their community well in a number of other capacities. I know that one of the coroners in Auckland has been a consultant obstetrician for many years. He is also a qualified lawyer and a Rhodes scholar. When that quality of person has been serving us in this capacity we know that New Zealanders have been well served. 
But times change and it is important to acknowledge that and now more considerations have to be accounted for around the coronial process. It is really quite appropriate that this legislation comes forward now and the appointment of a chief coroner is something that is probably long overdue. New Zealanders need to know that when they are confronted by extremely sensitive circumstances at what for most people would be a disastrous stage of their life—when a loved one or close relative is the subject of a coronial inquest—wherever they go in the country there will be a consistency of process. That is what this legislation will provide. There will now be I believe 20 full-time coroners who will be supervised by one chief coroner which means there will be rigorous processes around coronial inquests and that a consistency of service will be offered that takes into account and reflects the needs and expectations of modern New Zealand society. We are a diverse country made up of many different peoples and we do not all have the same beliefs and processes. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Yates Dianne: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Yates Dianne: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2965] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 As the former chair of the Government Administration Committee I am very pleased to speak on the Protected Objects Amendment Bill and I thank the present chair of that select committee Shane Ardern. I remind the House that in the last Parliament the Government Administration Committee consisted of five members. The committee deals with a wide range of very very interesting subjects. This bill in particular is about New Zealand’s national identity. It is about things we own in this country things that are part of our culture and things we value. 
I will read the introduction to the bill: “The bill will amend the Antiquities Act 1975 to provide a more precise definition of protected New Zealand objects subject to export regulation”— 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Don Brash! 
DIANNE YATES 
: I do not think he is a protected New Zealand object—and he does not want to be in New Zealand. 
The introduction continues: “and to prohibit the permanent export of protected New Zealand objects that are of such significance that their export would diminish New Zealand’s cultural heritage.” [ 
Interruption 
] I do not think exporting Don Brash would diminish New Zealand’s cultural heritage; I do not think he qualifies under this Act at all. “The bill also enables New Zealand’s participation”—this is very interesting—“in the UNESCO and UNIDROIT Conventions”—which are appended to the bill—“that prohibit the import of unlawfully exported protected foreign objects and provide for the forfeiture and return of such illegally exported objects.” 
This is a very very important bill. We have talked about New Zealand objects that are in other countries and of course this House has already received a petition which we support from the Greek people in respect of the Elgin Marbles. That is the kind of thing that the bill is about but it deals with New Zealand objects. 
I thank the members of the Government Administration Committee for working so well together on a number of issues that are important to New Zealand—art culture and our national identity. It is very important that many of the aspects of the upcoming Budget are about New Zealand’s national identity and what it means to be a New Zealander. I am very proud that the Protected Objects Amendment Bill has been brought in by the Labour-led Government.
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2961] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Historic Places Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
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. 
Bill read a second time.
Peters Winston: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Peters Winston: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2956] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 He just did it again and therefore I have seen a way out that may be a compromise. Given that the research unit obviously wrote that speech and got a number of the words out of sync with the way he spoke in his speech I seek leave for an extension of time so that the member can finish his speech with the different ending that the research unit obviously wrote for him because he repeated the sin twice. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member cannot seek leave for another member. He may seek leave himself and the House may well grant it but that is up to Mr Auchinvole.
Brown Peter: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2943] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 You may rule me to be out of order but the Hon Mark Gosche made some enlightening comments in that speech. I seek the leave of the House for David Bennett’s bill when he produces it to come straight out of the ballot and go through the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows I will rule that out and I do so right now.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2929] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
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. 
Bill read a third time.
Hartley Ann: General Debate 
Hartley Ann: General Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:2920] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Obviously I cannot comment on past rulings but the member does make a fair point. There have been warnings given on warnings given on warnings today. I certainly assure the member that I will act.
Mark Ron: General Debate 
Mark Ron: General Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:2919] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider something right now. It is a question of bias. On 5 April this year Mr Brownlee Mr Hide and Mr Smith all accused the Chair of bias. On 2 May this year Rodney Hide accused the Chair of bias. On 3 May Nick Smith again accused the Chair of bias. On 4 May Mr Brownlee accused the Chair of bias so did Mr Smith and Mr English also challenged the Chair. None of those occasions resulted in any of those members being evicted from the House. In fact a track record is now established whereby National Party members continue to challenge the Chair and there is no ultimate consequence. Through today’s proceedings the Chair has given the National Party about four final warnings—or at least three. Once again we have seen interjections during a point of order and now you Madam Assistant Speaker have not acted on the final final warning. It seems to me that a different standard is being presented in this House as suggested by Mr English Mr Smith and Mr Brownlee but today it quite clearly favours the National Party. I would like to be assured that this House is treating all parties equally that laws and rulings will be applied equally and that if there is another interjection on any point of order rather than finally warning the House again you will Madam Assistant Speaker exercise your authority and evict the person responsible.
Peters Winston: General Debate 
Peters Winston: General Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:2919] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an email that demonstrates that the only person who ever raised Julian Robertson’s name was one Don Brash—not me at any point in time so the member should stop making it up as he goes along. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: There will be silence when points of order are being dealt with. 
Document not tabled.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:2917] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As you well know the allocation of speaking spots for this debate is published well in advance. New Zealand First does not appear on the sheet today. Can the House have some explanation as to why Mr Peters now stands to take a speech? The fact is that this is supposed to be a Labour Party slot. Of course many people are now saying that Mr Peters has joined the Labour Party but I think the House is owed an explanation of this matter.
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — New Zealand First Campaign Funding 
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — New Zealand First Campaign Funding 
[Volume:631;Page:2914] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table evidence as to why John Foote joined me upon my departure from the National Party—because he could not stand the corrupt party at all; nor could I. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Tabling of Documents — New Zealand First Campaign Funding 
Brownlee Gerry: Tabling of Documents — New Zealand First Campaign Funding 
[Volume:631;Page:2914] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 In response I have been given leave to table the document so it will be on the Table very shortly. The member can pick it up and read it for himself. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has leave to table the document and is perfectly entitled not to give that information.
Mark Ron: Tabling of Documents — New Zealand First Campaign Funding 
Mark Ron: Tabling of Documents — New Zealand First Campaign Funding 
[Volume:631;Page:2914] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Speaker. My point of order is a question to you on the decision you made to sit me down and not hear my point of order. You have on many occasions in the House—and I could go to the  
Hansard 
—allowed people to seek clarification as to the request for which leave has been sought. On numerous occasions you have allowed people to clarify as to precisely what the document states. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What does the member want clarification about? 
RON MARK 
: That was all I was going to seek but you sat me down. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please make your point. 
RON MARK 
: Madam Speaker it is too late. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it is not too late. If it shortens this very long non - point of order could the member please just ask for what clarification he wished. I thought I had clarified whether the member had stood by the statement he made. But if the member has another point of clarification please make it quickly. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you. I ask whether the document states that the person ran the New Zealand First campaign.
Wilson Margaret: Tabling of Documents — New Zealand First Campaign Funding 
Wilson Margaret: Tabling of Documents — New Zealand First Campaign Funding 
[Volume:631;Page:2914] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member has made a statement of what was in the document. The member presumably stands by that statement as being a statement of fact. What the member is doing is actually debating the point. We are about to have a general debate so may I suggest that if it is a point of order please make it a point of order not a point of explanation or information.
Mark Ron: Tabling of Documents — New Zealand First Campaign Funding 
Mark Ron: Tabling of Documents — New Zealand First Campaign Funding 
[Volume:631;Page:2914] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the past you have allowed people to seek points of clarification so they might make up their mind as to whether they would object. That was all I was attempting to do because I know that the man mentioned was not the campaign manager for New Zealand First’s 2005 campaign. He was the campaign manager in one election for the Tauranga electorate. All I was seeking was a point of clarification—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order.
Brownlee Gerry: Tabling of Documents — New Zealand First Campaign Funding 
Brownlee Gerry: Tabling of Documents — New Zealand First Campaign Funding 
[Volume:631;Page:2914] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document showing that the person who was responsible for the daily management of Winston Peters’ and New Zealand First’s 2005 campaign was previously a fund-raiser for the Republican Party. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Would the member please indicate clearly whether there is any objection to the tabling of that document. There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:2911] 
11.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What steps has the Government taken to ensure that Work and Income services are meeting the needs of New Zealanders? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 As a result of a 72 percent drop in the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit under Labour—from 161000 in 1999 to 44500 now—this Government is rolling out a new service approach throughout the country. It is reshaping services to provide comprehensive employment help to all Work and Income clients regardless of their benefit type. As a Government we are committed to a modern responsive social support system that actively encourages into work those people who are able to work while ensuring that those who cannot work receive appropriate financial and social support. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What further work is the Government undertaking in this area? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Government is currently working on reforming the social support system to replace the seven main benefits with a simplified benefit system. The purpose of these changes is to ensure that we have a modern responsive system focused on what people can do not what benefit type they are on so that our benefit system is aligned to our work-focused new service approach.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:2909] 
9.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What initiatives is the Government implementing to support environmental education in light of the Labour-led Government - Green Party co-operation agreement? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am pleased to support today’s announcement by the Green Party of $13 million over a 4-year period for environmental educational support for teachers and schoolchildren. The funding which will increase progressively over the next 4 years will be used in the following three areas: $7.4 million will build and support the national coordination of the existing education for sustainability programme; $4.6 million will go to the Enviroschools Foundation to support its programmes; and $800000 will go to resources and coordination for total immersion and kaupapa Maori schools. Finally I would like to thank the Greens for the way we are able to work our way through this Budget and for their strong advocacy of environmental education. 
Metiria Turei 
: What reports has the Minister received about this most excellent initiative? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know we have had responses from all around the education system and outside it to say what a good policy this is. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Morgan Williams said that this is a significant funding increase and that he is delighted to see education for sustainability recognised. The World Wide Fund for Nature has also welcomed the investment saying that this funding will give much-needed resources for environmental education for schools. I see that Irene Cooper the national president of the New Zealand Educational Institute has said that funding environmental education represents a sound investment in the future. 
Steve Chadwick 
: How does this initiative build on existing environmental education programmes put in place by this Labour-led Government? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This initiative does build on the already existing excellent policies of the Labour-led Government—initiatives in schools that have seen a doubling in the number of people employed to coordinate initiatives at a regional and national level and enabling key programmes like Enviroschools now to be offered to 450 more schools. All of that builds on work around sustainable organic school gardens the Sir Peter Blake Environmental Educator Award support for learning experiences outside the classroom and electronic resources and links on the Ministry of Education’s online learning centre. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that comprehensive environmental education from early childhood to tertiary will leave today’s children in a much better position to deal with the very serious issues of climate change scarce oil resources and environmental degradation which sadly are our legacy and the legacy of previous generations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I do.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:2902] 
5.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What recent steps has the Government taken to further its commitment to settle all historical Treaty of Waitangi claims? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 On Sunday I announced new funding of $5.2 million over the next 4 years. That will provide the Office of Treaty Settlements with the additional staff and resources to further progress Treaty settlements. 
Dave Hereora 
: What other initiatives have been taken through the Treaty negotiations portfolio towards meeting the 20/20 deadline? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The new funding builds on the momentum of the past 6 years by the Labour-led Government to settle historical Treaty claims in a fair and a timely manner. We have continued to improve the claims process—for example through funding a claims development team that facilitates claimants going into negotiation. That is in addition to bolstering policy legal and in particular front-line negotiation capacity. These improvements are reflected in the escalating pace of negotiations entered into and most important settlements reached.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:2899] 
3.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any recent reports on business reaction to the proposed changes to telecommunications regulations announced last week? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have seen numerous reports of the overwhelmingly positive response of business to the changes announced last week including even a front page editorial from the  
National Business Review  
applauding the decision. About the only negative reaction I have seen is from the Business Roundtable Federated Farmers—which is yet to read the fine print—and the members opposite who of course opposed it before they supported it. 
Shane Jones 
: Has he received any reports suggesting significantly different approaches to telecommunications? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a report describing the decision as bizarre and an act of political desperation that will send New Zealand into the technological backwaters. I have also seen a report indicating that legislation to implement the proposals warrants support at least as far as a select committee. The difference between those two reports may have come as a result of reading emails from the business community because both reports have of course come from the National Party.
Turei Metiria: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3023] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Let me first congratulate Barbara Stewart on her contribution to the debate. It was the first contribution so far that has been relevant to the bill that dealt with the issues and that avoided the foolish politicking that is going on. I thank her for that contribution. 
The Greens are very pleased to see the bill come back to the House. We would also like to see it fast tracked; we see no need for delay. The issues are urgent and people need to have them sorted so that they can get on with their lives. We fully support the extension of the eligibility for the single rate of superannuation or the veterans pension to those who have spouses or partners in long-term residential care. We agree that the restricted eligibility criteria were very intrusive and very unfair. My colleague Sue Bradford sat on the Social Services Committee which heard the bill and she made a first reading speech on the legislation. I know that she feels very strongly about these issues as well as me. 
We also fully support the changes to the sharing expenses rule that the bill sets out. Like all people on low incomes superannuitants make huge efforts to maintain a reasonable life on a very meagre income. On a day-to-day basis they like other low-income people make financial arrangements to help with the inevitable financial shortfalls that occur when one lives on such a poor income. Those people should not be penalised or persecuted for making those arrangements. This bill fixes some of those rules for superannuitants and those on veterans pensions. We would like to see much more work done on fixing the rules that control and dominate the way in which low-income people manage their finances. We know it is extremely difficult for those who live on a very very low income and there must be some flexibility and recognition of the incredible work people do in trying to maintain an ordinary life. 
We hope that this bill passes quickly and without fuss. I urge members to enable that to happen and to desist from their foolish politicking. This is far too important an issue for that.
Beyer Georgina: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Beyer Georgina: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3017] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 In case anyone had forgotten we are debating the second reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. This bill is designed to ensure a fairer and more equitable treatment for many older New Zealanders. The Social Services Committee which was pleased to receive this bill worked very collaboratively and well together on something that nobody had any real disagreement upon. It was drafted well and the advice we received on the bill was pertinent. We were able to expedite it quite quickly. As chair of the committee I thank the committee for its good work and the advisers and committee clerks and staff for the assistance we have had to bring it back to this point in the House. 
This bill is delivering on Labour’s election promises as per usual. It extends the eligibility for the single living alone rate from 1 July 2006 to married superannuitants with a partner in long-term residential care. That was a key election commitment and the bill does that. It extends eligibility for the single rates of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension to all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who have spouses or partners in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. This change will mean nearly an extra $20 per week for approximately 2000 qualifying older New Zealanders. The bill also removes the sharing expenses rule which is arbitrary and too strict in places and it extends to 156 weeks the time people can be paid New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension while they are overseas and undertaking voluntary work for a recognised aid agency. 
The bill is further evidence of the commitment of this Government towards ensuring that superannuitants and veterans pensioners are able to live in dignity and to participate fully in society. This is the Year of the Veteran and what better timing could we have? The Labour-led Government has already made significant progress on issues that are important to older New Zealanders and this bill builds upon that progress. I commend it to the House and look forward to the rest of its passage.
Benson-Pope David: Communications Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Communications Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3014] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Communications 
: 
 I move  
That the Communications Legislation Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee 
referred to Commerce Committee 
 and that the committee report back to this House on or before 28 July 2006. 
Motion agreed to.
Williamson Maurice: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue 
Williamson Maurice: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue 
[Volume:631;Page:2996] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to be very fair and I think I was unfair to the brand-new Minister of Transport. The questions are actually assigned to the Minister for Transport Safety.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue 
[Volume:631;Page:2996] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When this kind of matter has been raised I have said that if members do have problems after a few days I am very happy for them to approach my office and we will do what we can to save troubling the Speaker’s office in terms of obtaining an answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The normal procedure of course is to approach the Minister first then approach the Speaker’s office and not to raise it in the House as a point of order.
Williamson Maurice: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue 
Williamson Maurice: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue 
[Volume:631;Page:2996] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do apologise to the House for doing this on a regular basis but it is something I just cannot allow to keep going. Again I have a couple of questions for written answer that are way overdue. They were due on the 2nd of this month. They are important questions to the Minister of Transport about gross vehicle mass and I need the information for a speech that I was going to give. I just think it is unacceptable that Ministers keep missing their deadlines by a long long way. 
Hon Annette King 
: What numbers? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well OK question for written answer No. 4246 due 2 May 2006 and question for written answer No. 4247 due 2 May 2006.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:631;Page:2995] 
12.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What initiatives has the Government put in place to assist New Zealand families when a separation occurs? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Today I launched a new parent information programme called How to Help Your Kids When You Separate. When parents determine that there is no option but to separate for the good of their own mental health and that of their children parents can also look to free professional support to help them and their children. This programme is about supporting parents to support their children when no option is left but to separate. It ensures that we are doing our part to maintain strong healthy families in whatever form they take. 
Martin Gallagher 
: In terms of helping families what precisely will the programme do and specifically what resources have been allocated to this programme in order to help families? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The programme will focus parents on the most important issue the children and how they cope with separation by alerting parents to the issues for children and will advise them on communicating with children in order to seek their kids’ views and involve them in decisions and on a range of matters that can help kids when parents separate. The initial cost of the programme is about $6 million with an ongoing allocation of $1.7 million. This is money well spent on assisting children at a time of stress and need for support. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister confirm that in the early pilots of this programme 97 percent of participants said that this programme should be a mandatory part for those using the Family Courts to settle custody issues; and if he can confirm that can I expect the Government to take up my offer to use my already drafted member’s bill to amend the Family Proceedings Act so that family education is a standard part of custody proceedings? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I can confirm that the figures quoted by the member are in fact the case. I can also confirm that the strong support from Judy Turner and her party for this programme has been very gratefully appreciated. With willing partners we have made a success of the pilot. Now that the programme is being rolled out nationwide and is available for 15000 parents per annum we will be able to assess the success at this point and consider how effective the voluntary aspect has been. I thank the member for her support so far and look forward to that continuing into the future.
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:631;Page:2993] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold my question over until the Minister is in the House and available to answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:631;Page:2993] 
10.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What recent initiatives has the Government taken to assist with the clean-up of contaminated sites? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Protecting and enhancing the environment is a key priority for this Labour-led Government. New Zealand has unfortunately an unwanted legacy of potentially contaminated sites from activities like pesticide manufacture coal gas production mining rubbish disposal timber treatment sheep dipping and so on. Budget 2006 is providing an additional $4.5 million over the next 3 years through Vote Environment to clean up contaminated sites. This new funding represents a 150 percent increase in the amount of money that will be available annually to councils to clean up such sites in New Zealand. 
Steve Chadwick 
: How has the Government been addressing the issue of contaminated sites? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Ministry for the Environment’s Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund is an example of local and national government working together to make a real difference to the environment and local communities by returning high-risk sites to safe and productive use. Since 2003 the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund has allocated a million dollars a year for the clean-up of the Mapua site near Nelson considered New Zealand’s most contaminated with the other $1 million being available to councils on a contestable basis. Setting the ongoing funding for the clean-up of Mapua to one side this new funding represents a 150 percent increase in the amount of money that will be available annually to councils to clean up such sites. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can he confirm that at this rate of funding for cleaning up contaminated sites it would take about a further 50 years to clean up the other 30 to 40 most heavily contaminated sites in New Zealand and centuries to clean up the 8000 to 10000 contaminated sites in New Zealand that pose a threat to our environment and to human health? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can confirm given the financial constraints and demands on ratepayers and constraints on local government that I believe the funding is set at what is currently an appropriate level.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:631;Page:2987] 
6.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What progress has been made on instituting and reinstating sole-charge and small police stations in rural areas? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 There are 64 one-person police stations currently situated around the country. New Zealand Police is looking at opportunities to improve the conditions of those stations both for the public and the police. The Government has already started with 15 new improved police stations for rural communities which are either already opened or planned to be opened over the next year. 
Darren Hughes 
: Has she seen any reports on policing in rural communities? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I have seen a rural policing report prepared by the police which highlights the establishment of a rural liaison portfolio. [ 
Interruption 
] The member for Whangarei who is trying to interject would be very pleased to know that the leader of that team is the district commander in his own area: Viv Rickard who is a very good district commander and I know that the member will agree. In rural policing the police are establishing opportunities for relief training covering leave time management and supervision for the police who work in those areas. I have also seen a report from the Manawatu-Rangitikei Federated Farmers meeting with local members of Parliament which sets out very positive actions that have been taking place for rural communities in the central region. I understand that the Opposition spokesperson on police was at that very meeting. 
Simon Power 
: How do rural members of the public know when they approach a person in police uniform and in an emergency situation whether that person is a sworn and fully trained police officer a decoy cop or the lead singer from the Village People? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am advised that from the time that temporary sworn police officers have been used they have been used mainly as jailers—as the people in jails who observe those at risk of taking their own lives and who transport prisoners. I think mainly the public who interact with temporary sworn officers would probably be either on the way to jail or in the jails themselves.
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:631;Page:2985] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Given that he is now advising the acting Prime Minister and essentially running the Government I seek leave to ask my police questions of the Hon David Cunliffe. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:631;Page:2977] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next Tuesday priority will be given to the debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises which is a 3-hour debate. At the conclusion of that debate priority will be given to the first reading of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill and progress on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlement to Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day and Thursday is Budget day.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:631;Page:2977] 
Thursday 11 May 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next Tuesday priority will be given to the debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises which is a 3-hour debate. At the conclusion of that debate priority will be given to the first reading of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill and progress on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlement to Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day and Thursday is Budget day.
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue 
[Volume:631;Page:2996] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Overdue 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do apologise to the House for doing this on a regular basis but it is something I just cannot allow to keep going. Again I have a couple of questions for written answer that are way overdue. They were due on the 2nd of this month. They are important questions to the Minister of Transport about gross vehicle mass and I need the information for a speech that I was going to give. I just think it is unacceptable that Ministers keep missing their deadlines by a long long way. 
Hon Annette King 
: What numbers? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well OK question for written answer No. 4246 due 2 May 2006 and question for written answer No. 4247 due 2 May 2006. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When this kind of matter has been raised I have said that if members do have problems after a few days I am very happy for them to approach my office and we will do what we can to save troubling the Speaker’s office in terms of obtaining an answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The normal procedure of course is to approach the Minister first then approach the Speaker’s office and not to raise it in the House as a point of order. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to be very fair and I think I was unfair to the brand-new Minister of Transport. The questions are actually assigned to the Minister for Transport Safety.
Benson-Pope David: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in  Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in  Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3111] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am hoping a lot of older New Zealanders sitting out there wherever they are are listening to this debate tonight because like me they will be absolutely gobsmacked by the sanctimonious self-serving nonsense they have heard from the benches of the Opposition. Just to remind the members of the Opposition of matters that they have not covered I will talk about Labour’s record of achievement for senior citizens. It was this Government that reversed National’s cuts to superannuation and restored the pension to not less than— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are in the Committee stage of Part 1 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. I am looking at the details and we have made many speeches and have wanted some answers from the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope. There are issues of living alone payments for people in residential care and also of people on Volunteer Service Abroad. I think it would be helpful for the Minister actually to address those issues rather than give us a lecture in ancient history. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. I am sure that the Minister was coming to that. He was fully entitled to range over a few issues because he and the Government had been under attack for some time. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in  Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in  Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3107] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to.  
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Clause 3 not agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in  Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in  Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3106] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Gallagher Martin: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in  Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in  Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3105] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Benson-Pope David: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3098] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill be referred to the Social Services Committee for consideration and that the committee finally report the bill back to the House on or before 30 September 2006. 
Motion agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3083] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that members do not wish to debate any other entities. The debate on the performance of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises has therefore concluded. I shall report the debate to the House. 
Report adopted.
Robertson H V Ross: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3073] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that the next group— 
Eric Roy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not sure where you are getting to but I seek leave that the next debate be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Roy I was just getting to that. 
Eric Roy 
: I am here to help. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know you are. I know that you were a former Assistant Speaker so I know that you are here to help. I understand that the next group of entities that members wish to debate is district health boards. Is it the wish of the Committee that the district health boards and Pharmac be taken as one question? Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.