edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:17122] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that neither the Minister for Economic Development nor the Acting Minister for Economic Development is in the Chamber I seek leave to carry over my question to the next sitting day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the question to be carried over to the next sitting day. Is there is any objection to that? There is objection.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:17119] 
2. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What do this morning’s Reserve Bank economic forecasts show? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The forecasts show that both consumer spending and business investment increased only modestly in the second half of 2010. There were recently some signs of an upturn but the earthquake has had a significant impact. The immediate impact will be to cut GDP by about 0.6 percent in the March quarter and the Reserve Bank believes that growth this year will be relatively weak. The earthquake impact comes on top of an economy that was already a bit weaker than expected before Christmas. 
David Bennett 
: What is the outlook for interest rates and exchange rates over the next few years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Although the Reserve Bank is forecasting growth to peak at over 4 percent in 2013 and unemployment to reach below 5 percent it believes that the interest rate cycle will be relatively subdued. Inflation is expected to be stable and the picture on interest rates is similar. Although the current low official cash rate will not last indefinitely the bank projects that 90-day rates will lift gradually to 4.6 percent by 2014 which is a low peak compared with the last cycle where the official cash rate reached almost double that figure. 
David Bennett 
: What discussions took place between the Government and the Reserve Bank prior to today’s official cash rate announcement? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: More discussion took place than usual. About 2 weeks ago just after the quake the Reserve Bank contacted us and suggested that in the presence of a national emergency policy makers might best be mutually informed of the likely crisis response. We agreed and we briefed the bank on the emergency measures that the Government was taking and how it was likely to impact on the 2011 Budget. The bank in turn described its own economic forecasts its thoughts on the appropriate stance for monetary policy and the availability of cash and banking services in Christchurch. At all times the official cash rate decision remained with the governor; I was not entirely sure until this morning what the decision would be. 
David Bennett 
: What are the implications of today’s forecasts for the rest of the Government’s programme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is good to see that the projections of the Reserve Bank include increases in household savings. According to the bank New Zealanders will continue to increase their savings rate. The bank expects that the Government will be back to financial surplus around 2014-15. This projection fits in with our own intentions.
Williamson Maurice: Chamber Lobbies and Galleries — Customs Training Programme—Graduates 
Williamson Maurice: Chamber Lobbies and Galleries — Customs Training Programme—Graduates 
[Volume:670;Page:17117] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I draw to the House’s attention that in the gallery today we have a stunning group of fine New Zealanders who are graduating from the customs training programme and becoming customs officers.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:670;Page:17117] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Correct.
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
[Volume:670;Page:17117] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Can I seek from the Acting Leader of the House an undertaking that there is a continuance of the previous undertaking not to take that bill under urgency.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:670;Page:17117] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week it is the Government’s intention to make further progress on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:670;Page:17165] 
Sittings of the House 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made good progress this afternoon. I seek leave for the House to rise early. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise early. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.
Chamber Lobbies and Galleries — Customs Training Programme—Graduates 
Chamber Lobbies and Galleries — Customs Training Programme—Graduates 
[Volume:670;Page:17117] 
Chamber Lobbies and Galleries 
Customs Training Programme—Graduates 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I draw to the House’s attention that in the gallery today we have a stunning group of fine New Zealanders who are graduating from the customs training programme and becoming customs officers.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:670;Page:17117] 
Thursday 10 March 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week it is the Government’s intention to make further progress on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Can I seek from the Acting Leader of the House an undertaking that there is a continuance of the previous undertaking not to take that bill under urgency. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Correct.
Collins Judith: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Collins Judith: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17951] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: I move  
That the Education and Science Committeeconsider the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 29 July 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17951] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Bill read a first time. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I remind members that if they are voting against a motion they must make it very clear that they are voting against it and then ask for a party vote.
Peachey Allan: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Peachey Allan: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17940] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I take just a couple of seconds Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson to say how pleased I am that you have resumed your rightful place as an Assistant Speaker in this House—your rightful place. 
I listened with great care to the Labour Party’s new spokesperson on tertiary education David Shearer. It probably would have been better if that member had made his opening statement supporting the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) and then sat down. After his first sentence I thought that maybe those guys over there were at last getting the idea that this Government knows what it is doing. But the longer he talked the less relevant he became to this bill and to this debate. It just brought home to the House again the yawning gap between the Government and the major Opposition party—the gap that is seeing the Labour Party slowly consigned to the rubbish bin of history. 
It became apparent that the Labour Party has no interest at all in developing a higher performing tertiary education sector. It has no interest at all unlike the Government in ensuring better value for every dollar that the Government spends. Remember that better value means a better education for the students who are paying part of the cost of being in a tertiary education system. 
I invite the next Labour speaker—and looking across the floor it is rather difficult to imagine who that might be—whoever it is to get on their feet and tell this House that the Labour Party supports a high performing tertiary education system and supports the policy to be introduced by this Government for 2012 that will begin to link Government funding to the performance of the institution. No other measure is guaranteed to ensure a better education for the students in this country than requiring performance from the institutions they attend. That is partially what this bill is all about. 
I invite that speaker Carmel Sepuloni—I see she is desperate to get on her feet though she will have to wait a minute or so longer—to also tell this House that Labour supports the Government’s policy to increase the number of university places for young New Zealanders. While she is doing that she may like to take the opportunity to apologise to young New Zealanders for Labour’s ineptness in administering the tertiary education system during those long dark 9 years when Labour had the opportunity to influence things. 
This is good legislation it is sound legislation and it will go a long way to meeting what should be the first requirement of every student in a tertiary education organisation: the assurance that they are in a quality organisation an organisation that has been judged on its academic performance and an organisation that puts the quality of teaching first. 
I welcome the comments from the next Labour speaker and I hope that that person addresses the issues that I have raised. I commend the bill to the House and I look forward to its eventual passage.
Heatley Phil: Housing Corporation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Housing Corporation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17937] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Services Committeeconsider the Housing Corporation Amendment Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 6 June 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Borrows Chester: Housing Corporation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Borrows Chester: Housing Corporation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17936] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 Is it not great to listen to a member from a Labour Party with huge aspirations for its constituency? Those Labour members have told us that in Government National is not innovative is not creative and has no aspirations. They have told us that all National wants to do is kick people out of their homes. All the Labour Party on the other side of the House wants to do is keep them encumbered. To whom? To the Labour Party. Why? Because those members want a constituency. They do not want people living in their own homes. They do not want to elevate people to a level where they can live under their own roof and own a piece of real estate for themselves. No those members want to keep them sucking on the teat of the State. That is exactly where those members are coming from. That is exactly what Mr Twyford was saying. 
We know that that is the way those members are. When the previous National was in Government before the previous Labour Government—before we had to endure 9 long years of that Labour Government—it had an innovative policy to use derelict Housing Corporation homes 99 of which were in the electorate of Whanganui. What did that National Government do with them? The homes were derelict and it could not get people to live in them. The houses were being set on fire and the windows were constantly being broken. That Government sold those derelict homes. 
What did the buyers of those derelict homes do? The Government sold them to people who would never have been able to get into their own homes for themselves. It sold them to people who were on benefits and people who had no equity. It took a 1 percent mortgage on them to start with and it rented the house back to those people. After 5 years those people were able to gain equity from those homes and under a pre-arranged agreement with the National Bank they were able to get a mortgage. What happened to the 99 homes that were sold to people who never would have been able to achieve homeownership under any particular Government? The 99 people who bought those homes either own those homes today or have onsold them and are now living in better homes which—what do you know—they also own for themselves. 
The party on that side of the House has no aspiration for people living in State homes. Those members want to keep those people in State homes but the Housing Corporation Amendment Bill inspires those people to go on and move to the next level of accommodation and homeownership. It inspires them to own their home and to do what is best for them in their situation and for their families. That is why this Government is enjoying an unprecedented enduring level of success and confidence. The people out there including the constituents of the party opposite believe that we are the best party to be in Government. We have an aspiration for them for their homes and for their families into the future. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.
Ross Jami-Lee: Housing Corporation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ross Jami-Lee: Housing Corporation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17934] 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I heard plenty of speeches like the one made by the member who has just resumed his seat Phil Twyford during the recent Botany by-election. They are all about complaints but there are never any solutions. They are all about whining but never about ideas. Well you would struggle to believe that the Opposition is— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is bringing the Speaker into the debate by using the word “you”. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: Listeners would struggle to believe that the Opposition is supporting the Housing Corporation Amendment Bill but it is supporting this bill I suspect because it is common-sense legislation. It is common-sense legislation because it directs resources towards core front-line services and reduces backroom bureaucracy. There is absolutely no point in having policy advice coming from two housing departments under the Crown. It is good that it is coming from the Department of Building and Housing but Housing New Zealand Corporation needs to focus on its core task. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation is one of largest landowners in this country. It manages $15 billion worth of assets so it makes sense that this Government wants to ensure that Housing New Zealand Corporation is focused on its core goal. We are looking to remove backroom bureaucracy where it is wasted at the moment. 
My electorate of Botany has some large chunks of Housing New Zealand Corporation homes primarily in the Flat Bush area. The apartment block that I moved into with my wife when we became a couple had a large number of the corporation’s properties within it. After chatting to those people I know that they want to see the Government focus on providing core services. Housing New Zealand Corporation needs to make sure that its focus is on providing core services. I also note that the wider Botany population wants to see the Government run its business as efficiently and effectively as possible. This bill seeks to do that. 
The National-led Government wants to ensure that Housing New Zealand Corporation focuses its efforts on putting the right people in the right houses in the right location. That is what the Minister of Housing talked about in a speech he made last month when he was addressing a significant sector group. It is a key goal of this Government and National is delivering on its promise. It is delivering on its promise of better managing the corporation’s stock and delivering better outcomes for New Zealanders who need help with housing. 
This bill is all about ensuring that there is no double-up. It is about ensuring that a common-sense practice—one department delivering policy advice and another delivering core front-line services—happens. That is why I think the House should support this bill.
Upston Louise: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — Second Reading 
Upston Louise: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17897] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I congratulate you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson on your appointment this afternoon. I am proud to speak in support of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill which creates a stand-alone Crown agent to perform environmental regulatory functions. I want to address a comment made by the previous Labour speaker who made claims about consultation regarding the mining permit issued on the East Coast. I thought it was worth bringing the House’s attention to an issue that arose in 2008 under the previous Labour Government when a seismic survey occurred with absolutely no consultation whatsoever. That raises the issue of a fairly strong double standard being shown by the gaggle opposite which is rather frustrating when this bill balances economic growth with environmental protection. 
In the interests of time I will speak specifically about one part of this bill and that is what is made possible in terms of national consenting. In my own electorate of Taupo it has been exciting to see the very speedy process with regard to the Tauhara geothermal plant. The initial request was lodged on 19 February 2010 and in the very same year the board of inquiry issued its final report on 10 December. That is a fantastic result and it reverses the disturbing trend under the previous Government when the consenting process took longer than the construction process. That is the sort of roadblock that this Government is pushing ahead and dealing with to make sure that we are able to get vital infrastructure projects up and running much more quickly with consultation and with the involvement of the people in the community who need and want to have their say. I am very proud to support the second reading of this bill. 
Amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority agreed to. 
Bill read a second time.
Barker Rick: Appointments — Assistant Speaker 
Barker Rick: Appointments — Assistant Speaker 
[Volume:671;Page:17893] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I stand with some mixed emotions about this motion. I have held the position that Mr Ross Robertson is about to assume for some time and I have thoroughly enjoyed my time in the Speaker’s eyrie in the Chamber. One looks down upon the members and gains a particular perspective that one does not get from sitting on either the Government benches or the Opposition benches. It is a very interesting position from which to view the House and it gives one a greater appreciation of the institution. I am very happy to support this motion because Ross has previously performed this function incredibly well. Ross is well known for swotting up on his Standing Orders and his Speakers’ rulings. He has the most annotated books of  
Standing Orders of the House of Representatives 
 and  
Speakers’ Rulings  
that I have seen. He constantly reviews them and on nearly every occasion that Ross gives a ruling he will refer members to say Speaker’s ruling 97/3 and he will say it almost off by heart. He is assiduous in his study of the work. Mr Robertson is indeed an unimpeachable person in this House as far as the Standing Orders are concerned. On behalf of the Labour Party I have the greatest pleasure in supporting this motion. 
Motion agreed to.
Heatley Phil: Housing Corporation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Housing Corporation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17921] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I move  
That the Housing Corporation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Housing Corporation Amendment Bill be referred to the Social Services Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 6 June 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington region despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
In December I announced the Government’s response to the report of the Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group. This included a decision to consolidate housing policy advice functions within the Department of Building and Housing by 1 July 2011. Consolidating advice functions within the department will allow for a more coherent integrated overview of housing sector issues and advice to Ministers. It will also provide greater synergy strengthen capability and avoid duplication of effort across agencies. 
This bill proposes an amendment to the Housing Corporation Act 1974 to support this change. The corporation will no longer be expected to provide the Minister of Housing with housing sector policy advice or with any advice or information on housing or services that does not relate to the provision of State housing. It will no longer be required to undertake research or monitoring activities for the purpose of advising the Minister of Housing on housing or services that do not relate to State housing. 
To help give effect to these changes the Housing Corporation Act 1974 will be amended to prevent Housing New Zealand Corporation employees who are offered a commensurate position within the Department of Building and Housing from claiming redundancy. Housing New Zealand Corporation employees who are offered and accept positions within the Department of Building and Housing will be transferred on terms that are commensurate with their current terms and conditions of employment. 
The proposed amendments contained in the bill are necessary to facilitate the consolidation of housing policy advice within the Department of Building and Housing as the Government intended. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17921] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Bill read a first time.
Roy Eric: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17912] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Just before I call the member in response to the point of order raised by Clayton Cosgrove it is not a requirement that the debate take place; it is a courtesy. The bill must be tabled in the House; it is. The courtesy has been attended to and within 5 minutes at the very outside the bill will be posted on the Government website.
Power Simon: Urgency 
Power Simon: Urgency 
[Volume:671;Page:17898] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill; the first readings of the Housing Corporation Amendment Bill the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2); the second reading of the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill; the Committee stage of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill; and the passing through its remaining stages of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill 
. It is important to advance the Government’s response to the Canterbury earthquake as quickly and effectively as possible and to advance other legislation to select committee. The vast bulk of those bills contained in the urgency motion are first readings to accommodate that outcome.
Dean Jacqui: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17954] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill which is a small yet elegant bill that proves without a doubt something that the Opposition members—in particular Carol Beaumont—do not seem to understand which is that this Government backs the police. The National Government backs the police and the prison service and furthermore is prepared to do something about it. For that very reason I am quite pleased that the likes of Carol Beaumont do not sit on the Law and Order Committee which is charged with the scrutiny of this bill. Following that rather woeful speech which showed for all time that Carol Beaumont neither reads the legislation nor understands it when she does read it I hope this bill will have decent scrutiny. 
I turn to the regulatory impact statement which spells out in plain English for those of us who can understand it that the Sentencing Act currently provides that the court may take into account any aggravating or mitigating factor it thinks fit in addition to the specific factors listed in section 9 of the Act. But this amendment to the Sentencing Act which shows without a doubt that this Government backs the police and the corrections service will provide an element of certainty by requiring the court to take into account the fact that an offence is committed against a prison officer or a police office. 
If Carol Beaumont stuck her head above the union parapets and went into the provinces she might notice that over the past 5 or so years a number of our police officers and prison officers have been under sustained attack by members of criminal elements in our society. What about that prison constable in Oamaru who was attacked in February last year while going about his duty on Thames Street? He was set upon by a couple of absolute cowards who beat him into the gutter. That police constable was working alone. Those people had beaten him into the gutter. They had done their work and proceeded to try to leave. Do members know what he then did? He got up out of the gutter and went and gave them a seeing to. That is the kind of policeman that our Government will back. 
What about the policeman in Wanaka who was going about his duty as a sole-charge policeman? I tell Carol Beaumont that in the provinces our police have to go about their duties in a sole-charge position. That is the way it is in the country. That policeman went to check out a woman driver. She took off in her car and he was dragged down the street. That police officer the police officer in Oamaru the police officer in Alexandra and the police officer in Ranfurly know that this Government has their backs. The Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill shows our police and the Department of Corrections that without a doubt this Government backs them. I commend this bill to the House.
Robertson H V Ross: Appointments — Assistant Speaker 
Robertson H V Ross: Appointments — Assistant Speaker 
[Volume:671;Page:17893] 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. No reira tena koutou matua Mr Speaker. It is with humility that I gratefully accept the honour that my parliamentary colleagues have offered me—to serve in this House as one of their presiding officers and this is not my first time. 
This Parliament the forty-ninth Parliament of New Zealand is blessed with many new talents alongside seasoned politicians who are well accustomed to the delicate difference of opinion in this place. I will ensure that every member has the fullest opportunity to define defend and deliver his or her vision according to the letter of the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings  
and in the spirit of engagement that our public expects. 
This is a robust Parliament a place for full and vigorous debate but contributions will be made with respect for the traditions of the House as enshrined in our Standing Orders. This is a place where continuous streams of ideas are tested according to our Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. It is like a river that flows from bank to bank so that its true potential is realised for all. 
I received an email from a seasoned parliamentary observer following the announcement that I was to be nominated as an Assistant Speaker. It read: “Ross is back” but he thought those words applied to Winston Churchill returning as First Sea Lord. My duty is to keep debate within the Standing Orders. After all these are the rules crafted from well over a century and a half of parliamentary practice in New Zealand and it is my duty to ensure that they are upheld. 
I trust that we will work together tatou tatou to ensure that this House grows in public esteem for courtesy is contagious and we will all prosper if we keep within the Standing Orders. Tihei mauri ora! Tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa.
Power Simon: Appointments — Assistant Speaker 
Power Simon: Appointments — Assistant Speaker 
[Volume:671;Page:17892] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice to appoint an Assistant Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I move  
That H V Ross Robertson be appointed Assistant Speaker 
. Kia ora and good afternoon. Ross Robertson was born on 22 May 1949 which makes him a Gemini on the cusp of Taurus. I am advised that as a pair of bull-headed twins people of this sign are fascinated with gathering as much information as possible and their facility as communicators is unmatched. 
To find out what motivated Mr Robertson to enter politics after a 20-year career in management I tracked down a conference speech he gave in 1996. In his own words: “I was attracted to stand for Parliament in 1987 3 years into what is now regarded as the great modern experiment in economic reforms among the OECD nations. I enrolled into a Labour Party with a strong and well-communicated point of view about creating wealth and well-being. I delighted in the sense of a unified and broad spectrum caucus.” I am sure those sentiments are just as strong today. 
Members of the House know Mr Robertson for his unwillingness for the Chair to be drawn into the debate his respect for Maori language and protocol his potent use of members’ notices of motion and of course his scarves. But I ask how many of us knew that he has represented Auckland and Wellington in rugby at various levels and has coached softball and soccer at provincial level or that he was New Zealand’s representative at the Regional Parliamentary Workshop on Small Arms and Light Weapons in Tbilisi Georgia in 2006. 
Members on this side of the House know Ross Robertson as a member with the utmost respect for this institution and its public face. Although he has yet to find support for a code of conduct for his members I have no doubt that appointing Ross Robertson as Assistant Speaker will indirectly improve standards in the House through the unimpeachable example set by the member himself.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:17892] 
12. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture 
: What has been the result of enforcement action taken by the Ministry of Fisheries under Operation PAID and Taskforce Webb? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 Last month the offenders involved in Taskforce Webb were sentenced. Aurora Fisheries Ltd and Kanai Fishing along with key individuals involved were convicted and fined a total of $840000 bringing the total penalties in relation to this case to $4.1 million. This is the most significant penalty ever achieved by the ministry and is a signal of the seriousness that the courts place on fisheries offending. Secondly Operation PAID—a 2-year operation—netted a total of 53 defendants who faced 321 charges. Most of the defendants have now been sentenced 28 of them to prison time.
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:17890] 
10. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: What has Inland Revenue done to assist the people in Christchurch after the February earthquake? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 The Inland Revenue Department has responded both nationally and locally to this extraordinary event. Initially the response was focused on communicating to taxpayers that they should focus first on family and friends and not on tax. Subsequently Inland Revenue Department has also been working with the Ministry of Social Development to deliver the earthquake support package. The second stage of support has been focused on addressing issues with regard to ongoing tax compliance and helping taxpayers to get back on their feet. In that regard Inland Revenue Department has applied all tax discretions available to it to Canterbury people who have been affected by the earthquake. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What policy changes has the Government announced as a result of the earthquakes and how will they help the people of Christchurch? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: A number have been announced. I made an announcement this morning regarding depreciation roll-over relief and the recognition of employer welfare contributions made to staff not being taxable. We have also provided an exemption so that businesses do not have to pay tax or gift duty on trading stock donated within 4 months of either the September or the February quakes. We are proposing to extend the redundancy tax credit to 30 September this year in order to alleviate the impost of use-of-money interest on late payments of tax. The commissioner will use his discretion to extend statutory tax dates on a case by case or class by class basis and we have exempted certain payments made to families who receive Working for Families tax credits as a result of the earthquakes from having to count as income.
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:17882] 
4. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What action if any has been taken in light of the study  
Ethnicity and Management of Colon Cancer in New Zealand: Do Indigenous Patients Get a Worse Deal? 
 which concluded that Maori New Zealanders with colon cancer were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy and experienced a lower quality of care compared with non-Maori patients? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The study the member refers to was published in July last year and was based on data from 1996 to 2003. The study is however consistent with many earlier reports that show that access to cancer treatment for all needs to be improved further. The issues raised in the study were incorporated in the planning and design of the Government’s $24 million bowel cancer screening programme announced last year which is being piloted by the Waitemata District Health Board. 
Rahui Katene 
: What explanation can be given for the fact that Maori were more likely to die during their post-operative period significantly less likely to receive chemotherapy for stage III disease and more likely to experience a delay of at least 8 weeks before starting chemotherapy? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There is a complex range of contributing factors and a range of opinions as to the relative weighting of those factors—for example socio-economic factors and the proximity of treatment services. What I can say specifically on chemotherapy is that treatment times are now being much more actively monitored and I am advised the latest data shows that no one has needed to wait more than 6 weeks to start chemotherapy and most started within 4 weeks. That is a significant improvement from the time the survey was taken. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does the Minister agree with the article published in 2010 that attention to health system factors is needed to ensure equal access and quality of cancer treatment for indigenous and ethnic minority populations; if so what is he doing to address these factors? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think there certainly is a need to improve the services as just stated by the member—indeed for all patients. That is one of the reasons why the Government is investing $24 million in a bowel cancer screening programme. The Waitemata project will include 7000 Maori in the pilot population. I can also advise the member that Pharmac has widened access to two additional drugs for bowel cancer: octreotide in July 2010 and capecitabine in October 2010.
Katene Rahui: Housing Corporation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Katene Rahui: Housing Corporation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17930] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand as the MP for Te Tai Tonga to speak on the Housing Corporation Amendment Bill. Housing particularly in the South Island is something that we are really interested in. We are particularly interested in measures to provide warm housing because we really miss out on that in the South Island. 
The policy on housing for Maori in particular really needs to be looked at because so many of us have large families as Maori. I remember as my young family were growing up being crammed into tiny little houses with our five kids. It was not a pretty sight particularly when they became teenagers and we had to find room for everybody to be able study and do all of those things that would enable them to grow up healthy. In Te Tai Tonga we know that housing is one of the greatest concerns for our people. Many Maori are living in substandard housing and many Maori are tenants of Housing New Zealand Corporation so we are vitally interested in this bill. 
When I was the managing solicitor at Te Ratonga Ture the Maori Legal Service I recall that one of the top issues we dealt with was housing. Many people came into us seeking help to deal with Housing New Zealand Corporation. As a constituent MP I can say one of the top issues constituents come to us and seek our help with is housing. I say again that many people come to seek help in dealing with Housing New Zealand Corporation. 
In Christchurch Housing New Zealand Corporation has been doing a relatively good job since the earthquake but unfortunately for the people who are leaving Christchurch and looking for assistance to find houses in other parts of New Zealand again Housing New Zealand Corporation is not doing a great job. Those people really need help. Just yesterday I had another constituent come into my Kilbirnie office absolutely frustrated with the lack of service she receives from her housing manager and with the time it is taking to have her concerns sorted out. She has been complaining for 2½ years and has not received any help. 
Will separating out the policy arm from the poor implementation arm improve service? Will it improve policy advice? I do not know whether it will but I am certainly interested in listening to people to the public and to the interest groups to hear what they have to say on that. So I look forward to the select committee process and to what people have to say about this legislation. I certainly hope we have a proper select committee process. We will support the bill at this stage but I look forward to hearing from the public on it. Kia ora.
Locke Keith: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
Locke Keith: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
[Volume:671;Page:17878] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the extension of the state of emergency. In fact I ask the Government to consider extending it some more at a future time. As I understand it the direction at the moment is to replace the state of emergency with the authorities granted to central authorities under the bill that is shortly to come before Parliament—namely I think the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority Bill; it is not on the Order Paper at the present time. That bill will apparently take over some of the authorities from civil defence. 
In order to allow Parliament to have proper time to debate such a replacement the preference of the Green Party would be to extend the state of emergency powers. This extension would allow proper considered discussion of the bill to come before Parliament with a proper select committee procedure. Particularly given that it will cover all of the different things covered in the Minister’s statement and even go beyond that as I understand it to some central direction of planning—which raises a whole lot of questions about local democracy—it would be much better to extend the state of emergency for some weeks while we have a considered discussion of the bill that is about to come before Parliament.
Mallard Trevor: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
Mallard Trevor: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
[Volume:671;Page:17878] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Labour does not intend to take a long period to debate the extension of the state of national emergency. I think it is fair to say that after eight repeats the Minister of Civil Defence is on his last chance this week.
Event: Members Sworn 
Event: Members Sworn 
[Volume:671;Page:17877] 
Members Sworn 
Mr Speaker 
 administered the Oath of Allegiance to Louisa Wall who then took her seat in the House.
Smith Lockwood: List Member Vacancy 
Smith Lockwood: List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:671;Page:17877] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Electoral Commissioner that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Louisa Hareruia Wall has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Darren Colyn Hughes. I understand that Louisa Wall is present and wishes to take the oath. Would she please come forward to the chair on my right.
Barker Rick: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17905] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Labour has four calls and the third call will be split. It will be split between the Hon Ruth Dyson and Brendon Burns. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Thank you.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:671;Page:17898] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Correction—Appointments 
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Correction—Appointments 
[Volume:671;Page:17877] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The vote on the question that the amendment in the name of the Hon Tariana Turia to the motion appointing the chairperson and members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee recorded the votes of three members as being cast for both the Ayes and the Noes. Further one member’s proxy vote was incorrectly exercised. I order that the vote be corrected by recording the votes of Lindsay Tisch Jonathan Young and Michael Woodhouse as being cast for the Ayes and Allan Peachey’s vote for the Noes. The correct result now stands as Ayes 31 and Noes 67 with one abstention.
Shanks Katrina: Housing Corporation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Housing Corporation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17925] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak in the first reading of the Housing Corporation Amendment Bill today. It is really interesting to listen to the member of the Opposition who has just resumed her seat Moana Mackey. She has a very short memory. She said that there are not enough State houses and that the houses are not good enough. She must remember that under her Government’s reign no money was spent on maintaining those State houses. The Labour Government transferred that money into building houses and turned itself into a slum landlord. What do slum landlords do? They create huge health issues. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Get your facts right. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Maryan Street can sit there and point her finger at me but the reality is that at the Social Services Committee when the Housing New Zealand Corporation came in and spoke to us the Labour Government was held to account for spending no money on maintaining that stock and for becoming a slum landlord. Members opposite can try to rewrite history as much as they want but we on this side of the House know the truth and we are trying to make a difference. 
As much as Labour put more money into the system and into building houses it let tenants stay in slum conditions. I know that the people of Ohariu will be proud of this Government because we are focusing Housing New Zealand Corporation on the houses that people are actually in. We are focusing the corporation on what counts and that is looking after the houses that people are in and looking after the tenants. That is where the corporation’s focus should be and that is what this bill is about: taking the policy arm out of Housing New Zealand Corporation and allowing it to focus on the tenants. 
I am taking just a short call in support of this bill. I look forward to it coming to the Social Services Committee which I chair and hearing the debate in that select committee. This is good legislation and I look forward to listening to the debate.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:671;Page:17898] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Local Government and Environment Committee to hear evidence on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill and for this purpose to have authority to meet on 12 April 2011 while the House is sitting and during an evening while the House is sitting and to meet in Christchurch during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 189(a) 190(1)(a) (b) and (c) and 201(1) and to report the evidence received to the House by 9 a.m. on Thursday 14 April 2011. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.