edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Urgent Debates Declined — Mapua Site—Report on Contamination Remediation 
Urgent Debates Declined — Mapua Site—Report on Contamination Remediation 
[Volume:648;Page:17462] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Mapua Site—Report on Contamination Remediation 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Dr Nick Smith seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on the investigation into remediation of the contaminated site at Mapua. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and the release of the report is a particular case of a recent occurrence that does involve ministerial responsibility. However there needs to be an element of urgency for the business of the House to be set aside. Working through the report’s recommendations will take time. Other parliamentary opportunities are available to consider the report’s recommendations. The estimates debate is set down on today’s Order Paper. This debate will provide an opportunity to debate any policy initiatives arising from the report. The application is therefore declined.
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17462] 
12.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does she have confidence in Housing New Zealand Corporation; if so why? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yes; much more than I would have had when the corporation was effectively a real estate agency under the last National Government. 
Phil Heatley 
: How did a New Lynn State house tenant manage to illegally sublet that State house for 8 years and 6 months right under the nose of the corporation? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: A review of investigation processes around subletting was carried out last year and better processes are used now than have been used previously. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Has she seen any reports about plans to sell State houses? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Yes. I have seen a report that National is telling tenants it will sell their houses to them. Unfortunately this policy is unaffordable for the vast majority of tenants as the average income of State house tenants is just over $17000 a year and they can therefore afford a mortgage of only $52000. However the average value of a State house is over $300000 in Auckland and Wellington and $230000 in Christchurch. This is just another example of National telling people what it thinks they want to hear and I think it should stop leading people up the garden path. 
Phil Heatley 
: How did this State house tenant manage to sublet a State house illegally for 8½ years under the corporation’s nose? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I advise the House that tenants who sublet their properties are in breach of their tenancy agreements and Housing New Zealand Corporation will seek remedy in the Tenancy Tribunal in such cases. Sometimes the facts are not immediately apparent. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have spent two supplementary questions asking the Minister how a State house tenant illegally sublet a house under the corporation’s nose for 8½ years. She has not answered how that person managed to get away with that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have listened carefully Mr Heatley. You raise this point every time you ask questions as you are perfectly entitled to do. However that is why I listened especially carefully to the answers. The Minister addressed the question. 
Phil Heatley 
: How did another State house tenant manage to sublet a State house for 8 years and 3 months under the corporation’s nose? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Cases of subletting are not immediately obvious to Housing New Zealand Corporation. I also advise the House that as at 30 June 2008 only 1.5 percent of all cases referred to the investigations unit were proven to be subletting. That is 54 proven subletting cases out of 3500 referrals.
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17461] 
11.  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Is he satisfied that the diplomatic relationship between New Zealand and the United States of America is improving; if so why? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 Secretary Rice’s visit to New Zealand was a great success and it reflected a stronger and improved relationship between our two countries. Indeed her visit confirmed that the relationship is recognised by both sides to be the best it has been for decades. The Secretary’s visit also confirmed that both sides are continuing to take a positive and forward-looking view of the relationship. As I noted in my remarks to the United States - New Zealand Council session at Auckland on Saturday night: “We have agreed at the highest levels that it is in the interests of both countries to work for a relationship that is defined by what we share and have in common not by our differences. Both sides share a determination to modernise our already strong and enduring relationship and frame it in a contemporary setting.” 
R Doug Woolerton 
: How is our relationship with the United States of America evolving to enable us to face the challenges of the 21st century today and into the future? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It has been a dramatic evolution with a lot of work going in over a long time. But now we are starting to see the fruits of this in our cooperation in the Pacific in the refocusing by the United States of the Pacific as imaged by the recent meeting of foreign Ministers in Samoa that was significantly attended and in some real issues to do with the long-term sustainability of energy in particular of the islands. We see it also in our work on countries like North Korea—the joint efforts to get rid of nuclear weapon threats in the peninsula—and in the kind of progress we are making there and in many other areas around the world. In short New Zealand is seen to be a country that is able to make significant contributions as a good neighbour in the region and indeed in the world.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17459] 
9.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What changes is he planning to make to the Employment Relations Act 2000 regarding employer contributions to KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: The Employment Relations Act is to be amended to ensure that employers pay the employers’ contribution to KiwiSaver and not deduct that contribution from the employees’ own total remuneration. The Government is providing a $20 a week tax credit for employer contributions which will cover the full cost in the first year of up to $104000 of employee income. It is unethical for employers to then deduct their contribution from an employee’s remuneration and claim a $20 a week tax credit for something that cost them nothing. 
Darien Fenton 
: Why are these changes necessary? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The changes are necessary because some employers have been pressuring employees to fund the employer contribution. Indeed some have simply told employees that that would happen. If this were allowed to continue the scheme would become an 8 percent individual employee contribution rather than a 4 percent employee contribution plus a 4 percent employer contribution arrangement as at present. In Australia it is a 9 percent employer contribution—the employee meets none of the cost of his or her superannuation scheme. 
Darien Fenton 
: What has been the reaction to these proposed changes? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) which has admitted to engaging in this practice itself with its own employees has sent newsletters and taken out newspaper ads calling this a busybody attitude. I understand that the public relations company running this campaign for the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) is the same one that advised former National Party leader Dr Don Brash. The National Party might be interested to know that the company supports mates of theirs in business taking money from their employees and then pocketing a tax credit from the Government.
Hide Rodney: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Gifts and Donations 
Hide Rodney: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:648;Page:17446] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House in taking up Mr Peters’ invitation to ask him what happened to the $25000 given to the Spencer Trust and where it was spent. I seek leave to ask that question and Mr Peters can answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? I heard objection. [ 
Interruption 
] I will put the question again. If members are not quiet it is very difficult to hear. Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Would the member please remove that sign if he wishes to remain in the Chamber.
Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Gifts and Donations 
Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:648;Page:17445] 
Personal Explanations 
New Zealand First—Gifts and Donations 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 First I would like to thank all those people who have sent me messages of condolence inside and outside this House and support since the death of my mother. Second I must point out that New Zealand has just experienced a media ego explosion. It works like a neutron bomb. The egos remain intact but the truth is ignored. And the fact that I am back now with not one question being asked in respect of the matters raised while I was away tells one volumes. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The House very generously gave leave for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to make a personal explanation. When a member is granted leave to make a personal explanation the courtesy is that he or she makes one. We are still waiting for that Minister to answer the questions that this House has of him. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. It is not an opportunity for a speech. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If there was a shred of merit in that last point of order the member would have asked a question. He has not—but very shortly I will be asking a question about him. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please be seated. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The member knows quite well that no questions about donations to New Zealand First can be put to him in his ministerial capacity. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That has been noted. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Noting the challenge laid out by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in his personal statement I seek leave for a representative of the media to be able to make a reply to Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think that that is within the Standing Orders but leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House in taking up Mr Peters’ invitation to ask him what happened to the $25000 given to the Spencer Trust and where it was spent. I seek leave to ask that question and Mr Peters can answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? I heard objection. [ 
Interruption 
] I will put the question again. If members are not quiet it is very difficult to hear. Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Would the member please remove that sign if he wishes to remain in the Chamber.
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Gifts and Donations 
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:648;Page:17445] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Noting the challenge laid out by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in his personal statement I seek leave for a representative of the media to be able to make a reply to Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think that that is within the Standing Orders but leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Gifts and Donations 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:648;Page:17445] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The member knows quite well that no questions about donations to New Zealand First can be put to him in his ministerial capacity. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That has been noted.
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Gifts and Donations 
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:648;Page:17445] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If there was a shred of merit in that last point of order the member would have asked a question. He has not—but very shortly I will be asking a question about him. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please be seated.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Australia—Commonwealth Political Exchange 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Australia—Commonwealth Political Exchange 
[Volume:648;Page:17445] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the participants in the political exchange from the Commonwealth of Australia led by Mr Michael Johnson are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the participants be welcomed.
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Gifts and Donations 
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:648;Page:17445] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 First I would like to thank all those people who have sent me messages of condolence inside and outside this House and support since the death of my mother. Second I must point out that New Zealand has just experienced a media ego explosion. It works like a neutron bomb. The egos remain intact but the truth is ignored. And the fact that I am back now with not one question being asked in respect of the matters raised while I was away tells one volumes.
Hide Rodney: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Gifts and Donations 
Hide Rodney: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:648;Page:17445] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The House very generously gave leave for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to make a personal explanation. When a member is granted leave to make a personal explanation the courtesy is that he or she makes one. We are still waiting for that Minister to answer the questions that this House has of him. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. It is not an opportunity for a speech.
Visitors — Australia—Commonwealth Political Exchange 
Visitors — Australia—Commonwealth Political Exchange 
[Volume:648;Page:17445] 
Visitors 
Australia—Commonwealth Political Exchange 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the participants in the political exchange from the Commonwealth of Australia led by Mr Michael Johnson are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the participants be welcomed.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Tonga—Coronation of King George Tupou V 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Tonga—Coronation of King George Tupou V 
[Volume:648;Page:17445] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I move  
That this House congratulate King George Tupou V of Tonga on his approaching coronation welcome his assurance that he is to voluntarily surrender most of his power to promote the democratic aspirations of his people and look forward to the continued advancement of democracy in Tonga. 
Motion agreed to.
Motions — Tonga—Coronation of King George Tupou V 
Motions — Tonga—Coronation of King George Tupou V 
[Volume:648;Page:17445] 
Tuesday 29 July 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Tonga—Coronation of King George Tupou V 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I move  
That this House congratulate King George Tupou V of Tonga on his approaching coronation welcome his assurance that he is to voluntarily surrender most of his power to promote the democratic aspirations of his people and look forward to the continued advancement of democracy in Tonga. 
Motion agreed to.
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16881] 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Part 1 is the main part of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) and I trust National will be allowed to take many calls on this very important part. I myself will certainly take quite a few calls on this legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] It is wonderful to hear that people are looking forward to them! 
The first point I raise is a new provision brought into the legislation to compensate those who during the course of their employment witness a traumatic event. The major objection we have against this provision is that the officials themselves had a lot of problems estimating the consequences of it. The cost estimates provided by the officials range from $7.6 million to $72.2 million. That basically means they have no idea of the impact of this provision and we will expand on that. 
Secondly we object to the fact that the Government’s provision will affect only claimants who will fall into the work account category. The Government thinks it is good enough to compensate witnesses to a traumatic event only if their employers are paying the levy. If the witnessing of the event does not happen in the course of employment—if the compensation has to come from another category that is funded by general tax—it will not be covered. We would like the Minister to take a call to explain the equity of that. Why is Labour favouring one class of New Zealanders over another one? Those members are saying that people who are in employment deserve to be compensated but people who are not in employment should not be compensated. That is very strange coming from a Labour Government that persistently says how valuable for example women who stay at home to look after their family are. On the other hand if those women witness a traumatic event because they stay at home and take care of the children and are not in employment they will not be compensated. 
The Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) has issued a press release. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Wong Pansy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16881] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Part 1 is the main part of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) and I trust National will be allowed to take many calls on this very important part. I myself will certainly take quite a few calls on this legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] It is wonderful to hear that people are looking forward to them! 
The first point I raise is a new provision brought into the legislation to compensate those who during the course of their employment witness a traumatic event. The major objection we have against this provision is that the officials themselves had a lot of problems estimating the consequences of it. The cost estimates provided by the officials range from $7.6 million to $72.2 million. That basically means they have no idea of the impact of this provision and we will expand on that. 
Secondly we object to the fact that the Government’s provision will affect only claimants who will fall into the work account category. The Government thinks it is good enough to compensate witnesses to a traumatic event only if their employers are paying the levy. If the witnessing of the event does not happen in the course of employment—if the compensation has to come from another category that is funded by general tax—it will not be covered. We would like the Minister to take a call to explain the equity of that. Why is Labour favouring one class of New Zealanders over another one? Those members are saying that people who are in employment deserve to be compensated but people who are not in employment should not be compensated. That is very strange coming from a Labour Government that persistently says how valuable for example women who stay at home to look after their family are. On the other hand if those women witness a traumatic event because they stay at home and take care of the children and are not in employment they will not be compensated. 
The Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) has issued a press release. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill — Third Reading 
Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16881] 
Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16881] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a third time.
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16881] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill be now read a third time 
.
Vote: Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16881] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a third time.
Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16881] 
Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a third time.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16881] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time 
.
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:648;Page:16880] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bills read a second time.
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16842] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill — First Reading 
Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16842] 
Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Turner Judy: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16836] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill which records acknowledgments and an apology and gives effect to the deed of settlement. This is an affiliate whose area of interest covers 500000 hectares and a population of approximately 24000 people—11 iwi and hapu groups from the Rotorua and Kaingaroa areas. This bill highlights acts of omission and commission and acknowledges those things in writing. It progresses historical claims through to a place where today some finality can begin. 
The affiliate chose to forgo the right to have claims heard by the Waitangi Tribunal and instead favoured entering into direct negotiations with the Crown based on a willingness to settle the historic claims of the affiliate in the most effective and efficient manner possible. In April 2004 the Crown recognised the mandate of the Executive Council to negotiate a settlement and the process continued through to the signing of the agreement in principle and then through to a stage where of those who are entitled to vote and chose to 97 percent voted in favour of accepting the deed of settlement. 
This bill contains a lot. It contains a series of acknowledgments by the Crown of areas in which it has failed these people. It acknowledges the taking of land it acknowledges the generosity of Te Arawa in gifting land for the good of the nation and it also acknowledges the loyalty of this people to the Crown in many ways historically. It sets out a formal apology and then proceeds with the vesting of lands. I was very interested to note that it also establishes by agreement a relationship between the affiliate and the Ministry for the Environment to allow discussions of the performance of local government in the affiliate’s area of interest regarding the Treaty and the provisions of the Resource Management Act. United Future welcomes that particular provision because we understand that Te Arawa value the land beyond the realm of the commercial. We welcome the longevity of resource management that that provides for that area. 
United Future has a policy of supporting all settlements that are the result of robust negotiations between Maori and the Crown. The hard work that has been done means that it is the role of this House to come in behind the outcomes of that process. United Future does not enjoy representation on the select committee that will be processing this bill but we look forward to receiving assurances that this written word accurately reflects the intention of Te Arawa. We congratulate those gathered today who are chaperoning this bill over the legislative line and we also congratulate and acknowledge those who have championed the negotiations but never got to see this important step. We are happy to support this reading.
Bradford Sue: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16833] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
Te manuhiri tuarangi nga kaumatua nga rangatira o Te Arawa kua tae tautoko mai i tenei ahiahi nau mai haere mai whakatau mai. 
[ 
To the visitors from afar the elderly the chiefs who have arrived here in support this afternoon welcome welcome draw near 
.]  
I will make only a short speech this afternoon on behalf of my Green Party colleague Metiria Turei. The Green Party will be supporting this first reading of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. We will be following the progress of this bill closely through the select committee process especially the submissions received to understand better the mandate the Government has secured for this settlement and for the concerns of the cross-claimants. The return of the 24 cultural redress properties amongst other key elements in this settlement package has been a very long time in coming and the Greens are pleased to see this bill finally before the House. 
We warmly welcome the iwi and hapu of Te Arawa and their bill to Parliament. We want first to recognise the incredibly hard work by the iwi and the negotiators on their behalf who have been working through the Government’s negotiation process. It is and has been a difficult costly time-consuming and often agonising process. 
As the House may already know the Greens have a continued and sustained objection to the Government’s Treaty claims settlement process. We believe that it is fundamentally unfair to the claimants. The redress offered by the Government amounts to only a tiny fraction of the value of land taken from Maori by insatiable European settlers or a Crown all too ready to side with them. The conditions that iwi must agree to in order to gain redress for the wrongs committed in the name of this Parliament are in our opinion simply unconscionable. Our criticism of this settlement bill has been and will continue to be squarely directed at the Government’s settlement framework and the small amounts the Government has set aside for possible redress. 
However having said that I say that this is also a moment full of hope not only for the people of Te Arawa but for all of us. After all we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers. We are all responsible to ensure that justice prevails in these lands and when it does we can all share in the prosperity of living in a truly just society. I hope that this settlement works out in a way that is beneficial for all iwi members. Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi engari he toa takitini. Kia ora koutou. 
[ 
Our strength is not as individuals but is as a collective effort. Greetings to all. 
]
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:16823] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am advised that the Hon Mark Gosche who chairs the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is not present. The question to him will be held over. I am further advised that the Hon Peter Dunne will not be present tomorrow so the question will be brought up again on Thursday.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:16813] 
5.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: What action is the Government planning to ensure communities have a real say in liquor licensing decisions? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Among the law changes that are being proposed we intend to give local councils and their communities real teeth to establish plans that include setting things like opening hours one-way door policies limitations on outlet density and proximity to other premises like schools. Communities have made it clear that they want a say in licensing decisions and we intend to introduce a bill to allow just that which is why that proposal has been so warmly welcomed all around New Zealand. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Government considered taking measures to prevent activities that may promote excessive consumption of alcohol or binge drinking? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Parliament considered this issue in 1999 when I moved an amendment to make it an offence to promote excessive alcohol consumption on licensed premises. Prominent MPs on the other side of the House voted against the amendment including Bill English Gerry Brownlee the then Minister of Justice Tony Ryall and surprisingly Pansy Wong. Fortunately good sense prevailed and the amendment was passed. I am surprised that some of the people who say they support stronger measures today did not support even that most basic measure to limit binge drinking just a few years ago. 
Simon Power 
: Why when a review of alcohol issues that was commissioned in 2006 included in its terms of reference the number of alcohol outlets is this matter now being further kicked to touch to the Law Commission? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The issue of the number of outlets was referred to in terms of reference to the things that had changed but it was never actually the subject of that review. That review produced a whole lot of good measures that this Government is proceeding with. One of those is the “three strikes and you’re out” rule and another is the removal of the defence of “reasonable belief” for serving alcohol to a minor. A significant change that we have made to the announcement we made last year is that there will be a ban on adults supplying liquor to under-18-year-olds unless the adult is a parent or guardian or has the consent of a parent or guardian. That is a major change that we are making. I heard Simon Power say on TV over the weekend that National has spent some months calling for action on the proliferation of liquor licences; well I could not find anything about it.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:16811] 
3.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received about the number of people receiving benefits? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have received a report saying that at the end of May this year there was a total of 255000 people on benefits. That is 5000 fewer people than at the same time last year. This includes all people on unemployment domestic purposes sickness and invalids benefits. Under a Labour-led Government people continue to move off benefits and into paid work. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What is the main reason for people to move off the unemployment benefit? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The main reason for people leaving the unemployment benefit is to enter paid employment. It is simply not true to allege as the National Party does that a large number of people move from the unemployment benefit to the sickness or invalids benefit. Between March 2000 and March of this year there were close to 1 million cancellations of the unemployment benefit; 8.8 percent of those cancellations were because of a transfer to the sickness benefit and only 0.3 of 1 percent were because of a transfer to an invalids benefit. The main reason for people leaving the unemployment benefit is to move into paid work. 
Judith Collins 
: Can the Minister provide a straightforward answer to a reasonably straightforward question—why is it taking more bureaucrats especially in the communications and policy units to administer fewer benefits? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I explained to the member at the select committee and in the House last week it is our policy to ensure that people are aware of and receive their full and correct entitlements. That is a primary role of a core Government department and that is why people now do not complain about Work and Income in the way they did when that member’s party was leading the Government.
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:16807] 
1. Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What progress has been made in responding to the recommendation from the Government-appointed reviewer David Goddard QC that physiotherapists needed a 33 percent increase immediately as “ACC funding arrangements for physiotherapists are unsustainable.”? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I have asked officials to work with the physiotherapy sector to establish a funding model to address the sustainability of physiotherapy services. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Is it appropriate for physiotherapists to bear an unfair proportion of the cost of treating injuries; if not what will this Government do to address this concern? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Officials are currently engaged in exploring how physiotherapy services may be sustainably funded. 
Sue Moroney 
: What adjustments to funding have physiotherapists received previously? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Several. For instance the Labour-led Government has raised the regulated physiotherapy rates by over 28 percent. However a previous funding adjustment in 1992 resulted in funding to physiotherapists being slashed by 15 percent. That generous adjustment happened under the previous National Government. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: What action will the Minister take to prevent physiotherapists from leaving for better pay in Australia or opting out of the profession altogether for greater security less stress and better pay in other occupations? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The reviewer noted in fact that there was no evidence to suggest that New Zealand was materially out of step with comparable jurisdictions in retaining senior members of the physiotherapy profession. 
Peter Brown 
: In light of that answer will the Minister scotch a particular rumour and confirm for the benefit of this House and the wider public that the Government is more than satisfied with the review the manner in which it was conducted and the analysis that the reviewer obtained in order to make his findings; in short will she confirm that the review was very well done and the reviewer came to a justified conclusion? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The review was very competently done and addressed the questions and the terms of reference set down for it. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister confirm that the physiotherapy profession conducted itself in a proper and responsible manner in calling for this review and was totally supportive of it and will she confirm also that physiotherapists play an exceedingly important role in rehabilitating accident victims; if she can confirm those two assertions can she advise why the Government in the recent Budget did not move some way at all towards a 33 percent increase and instead treated these people like overlooked women and men? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I can confirm those two things. However the evidence needed to ensure that a sustainable rate of pay is arrived at for physiotherapists was not present in that review.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Zimbabwe—Presidential Election 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Zimbabwe—Presidential Election 
[Volume:648;Page:16805] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future unreservedly endorses the resolution that the Prime Minister has moved but we cannot let this occasion pass without observing that the awful series of events now unfolding in Zimbabwe does not come as any great surprise and is not a great triumph for international diplomacy. 
For years people in Zimbabwe have been warning of this rapid slide towards anarchy and towards terror in that country yet for years international institutions have chosen to turn what is effectively a very blind eye to that situation. I welcome the involvement of the United Nations Security Council today but it is too late. The efforts that the Commonwealth has taken over the years have been a little bit too gentle to make real change and the attitude of the South African President Thabo Mbeki demonstrates a lack of touch with reality that really does not befit his status. None of these things condones the violence the butchery and the abhorrence of democracy that the Mugabe regime has demonstrated but they do point a finger at our collective conscience at our failure as free and democratic countries to act soon enough to prevent Zimbabwe’s descent down this path. 
I admire the courage of Morgan Tsvangirai and his supporters in all that they have had to endure since the March election but they have endured that terror day in and day out for years now. The violence has been escalating in all that time. The warnings have been ignored. The message must surely be that all of us in this Parliament the United Nations and the Commonwealth and the peoples of southern Africa have got to take much more responsibility for having let this intolerable situation develop to the point where it is today. Zimbabwe depends on its ability to trade with others. It depends on its interaction with the international community. We say now that the responsibility lies with South Africa and that it should do all it can to bring this regime to heel. We have that responsibility we have had it and we have ignored the opportunity to take it. So although I think this resolution is important—and I hope that it will be supported by similar resolutions by other Parliaments around the world—we have to do a little bit of head-hanging-in-shame at having allowed this situation to develop to this point. 
I hope that our efforts this time will succeed in the removal of the dictator. I am mindful of a similar situation some 60 years ago in Europe where continued appeasement and the passage of general resolutions did not result in the removal of the dictators but simply resulted in more human misery and suffering along the way. I hope that this time a more successful outcome can be achieved. I hope that the people of Zimbabwe whose long national nightmare continues can soon look forward to some relief but I do not have a great deal of confidence on that score.
Locke Keith: Motions — Zimbabwe—Presidential Election 
Locke Keith: Motions — Zimbabwe—Presidential Election 
[Volume:648;Page:16804] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party fully supports the Prime Minister’s motion and we are pleased that it has incorporated some of the Green Party’s motion that was to be moved today. The Mugabe regime has been an utter disaster for the people of Zimbabwe and has been able to survive for so long only because of support from some neighbouring countries particularly the Mbeki Government in South Africa. We are very glad that is now changing. 
It is clear that free and fair elections cannot be held purely under the auspices of the Mugabe dictatorship and the resolution before us is right in calling for Robert Mugabe to step down as President. Whether or not that happens immediately I think the world must at the very least insist that the regime allow in a peacekeeping force tasked with stopping rampaging thugs from intimidating supporters of the Opposition and also with establishing a climate in which fair elections can be held. Although such peacekeepers be they military or police would predominantly come from African countries I think it would be a good gesture and would be welcomed by the people of Zimbabwe if New Zealand offered to contribute to such a force. There must also be international monitors inside any electoral process in order for the elections to be truly free. Last time the Mugabe regime stopped Zimbabwe’s electoral commission from releasing the result of the presidential election for some weeks and there was very much doubt as to whether it was an accurate result. As the Prime Minister has just said it may well be that the Opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai actually won that election. 
The world cannot stand idly by while the people of Zimbabwe suffer so much under the heel of the dictatorship. It is our responsibility in every international forum—and I am glad that the Prime Minister and the other speakers have talked about this—and in any forums where we have links particularly with the Government of South Africa to press the United Nations and the Commonwealth for very strong action. The world has dallied enough and let the Zimbabwe people descend into the abyss. We must help them at this critical time.
Peters Winston: Motions — Zimbabwe—Presidential Election 
Peters Winston: Motions — Zimbabwe—Presidential Election 
[Volume:648;Page:16803] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The decision of Mr Morgan Tsvangirai the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change to withdraw from the second round of the presidential elections in Zimbabwe follows a deepening crisis affecting that country. We must respect his decision. It has been made in the context of increasing violence intimidation and murder directed against his supporters and most probably against the background of his having won the first round despite all the flaws and manipulation in respect of that election. 
There can be no fair election when violence prevents people from exercising their right to choose a Government. All indications are that the violence is one-sided and is being perpetrated by groups linked to Zimbabwe’s security forces and the ruling party ZANU-PF. So far at least 85 Movement for Democratic Change members have been victims of targeted killings while several thousand innocent citizens have been injured and thousands more either displaced or unlawfully detained. 
New Zealand strongly condemns this blatant violence and blatant violation of the democratic process. The results of the elections on 29 March demonstrated that Zimbabweans want change. Mr Tsvangirai’s withdrawal from the second round of voting is a serious desperate blow to their hopes. Mugabe has completely lost the confidence of Zimbabwe’s people who once welcomed him as a liberator. Recent statements made by prominent African leaders have confirmed that they too find his behaviour intolerable. 
The next few days are therefore critical. We look to African leaders including President Mbeki of South Africa to engage with real strength and resolve in efforts to bring this crisis to an end. We wish to reiterate New Zealand’s unwavering support for the efforts of African organisations particularly the Southern African Development Community and the African Union to hold Mugabe’s regime to account. The United Nations Security Council today has discussed the situation in Zimbabwe and New Zealand welcomes the Security Council’s condemnation of the Mugabe regime’s campaign of violence which has been delivered in the strongest possible terms. New Zealand will continue to work with the UN and like-minded countries to determine a way out of the current impasse. Zimbabwe has suffered deeply under the current regime. It is an absolute and total tragedy. For the country now to have any chance to develop and prosper and have peace democracy and stability is a decision that the rest of the world—but most particularly the neighbourhood in which Zimbabweans live—must resolve and act upon.