edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19593] 
7. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: In light of the answer given on his behalf to Oral Question No 2 on 15 June is it his opinion that real average after-tax wages do not go up when high-income earners get tax cuts and low-income workers lose their jobs? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 It is my opinion that real after-tax wages go up when the economy becomes more productive and people get to keep more of the money that they earn. That is why the real after-tax wage has gone up by 10 percent since 2008 but went up by only 4 percent over the 9 years before that under a Labour Government. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What does happen to average net after-tax wages when high-income earners get tax cuts? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That would be subject to and depend on a number of factors. It is not possible to say immediately because it would depend on amongst other things the inflation rate the number of people who are working and various other component parts. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table a document that was prepared by the Parliamentary Library which shows the increase in average wages as a result of the National Government’s tax cuts for the rich. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Annette King 
: Oh they don’t like the truth. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is objection because of the way the document was described. [ 
Interruption 
] The reason why there was objection I suspect relates to the last words used in the seeking of leave.
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
[Volume:673;Page:19608] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member’s speech. I ask you to reflect on whether his speech was a reflection on you as a more senior member than Mr Goff as to being around here too long. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are not going to carry on this nonsense. That was not a point of order.
Vote: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19638] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill and the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 3)  pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper248. 
The Chairperson reported the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill with amendment and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill without amendment and that the Committee had divided it into two bills. 
Report adopted.
Robertson H V Ross: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19645] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Kia ora tatou no reira e te Whare e nga iwi e nga reo e nga hau e wha tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Good evening honourable members. The House is in Committee for consideration of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. When we last considered the bill debate on clauses 1 to 3 was in progress. The Hon Lianne Dalziel has the call and has 3 minutes and 30 seconds remaining if she so wishes. Of course we understand that a number of members are in Christchurch because of the earthquake so I ask a member to seek the call.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19593] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the record of the issuing of the first consent for the Pike River mine in 1998. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19593] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table the consents for the Pike River mine that were issued on 23 May 2003 and the consents that were granted by the Department of Conservation and the Minister in 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19591] 
5. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he believe that in the current economic environment kiwi companies should be considered favourably with regards to big government contracts? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I believe the current economic environment makes it even more important that Government spending achieves the best value for money possible on behalf of taxpayers. In that respect we are simply following the guidelines that the previous Labour Government laid down in 2007. I quote: “New Zealand’s own government procurement market is open and competitive and the policy does not call for discrimination against foreign suppliers.” 
Hon David Parker 
: Have members of his Government vowed that the multimillion-dollar contracts to build thousands of temporary houses and utility blocks in Christchurch will go to Kiwi companies and does he agree? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I have not heard such vows being made. The Government has been exploring the market for temporary housing and some results of that will be coming back in pretty soon I think. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does he believe that preference should be given to New Zealand companies in the building of thousands of temporary homes in Christchurch? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I believe preference should be given to the people of Christchurch being able to get access as quickly as is necessary to a reasonable quality of temporary housing and that is what the Government processes aim to do. 
Hon David Parker 
: Will the Government release a cost-benefit analysis as to the benefits of those houses being built by New Zealand companies rather than overseas contractors? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That might be an interesting idea; I am not sure what it would show. We have been focusing more on the needs of the people of Christchurch some of whom need temporary accommodation and we will continue to do so. 
Clare Curran 
: Given the significant size of the flat-deck wagon contract with KiwiRail and the implications for New Zealand’s rail engineering workforce will he commission a report into the real cost difference if any between imported flat-deck wagons and New Zealand - built ones? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As has been discussed in the House decisions about that issue were made on a commercial basis by the KiwiRail board. The Government needs to give KiwiRail the best possible opportunity to be a successful and viable organisation. As I think everyone knows that is quite a challenge. It needs every advantage we can give it. 
Clare Curran 
: Does he deny that a senior KiwiRail representative said at a meeting of KiwiRail’s mechanical council committee on 23 March that a political decision had been made to buy the 3700 flat-deck wagons from outside New Zealand rather than have them built in New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have no idea what transpired at that meeting but if anyone said that they would certainly have been wrong.
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19587] 
1. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: When was the Core Clinical Committee established in Kawerau and how are iwi involved in the membership and functions of this joint taskforce to tackle youth suicide? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Core Clinical Committee was established in the wake of a number of tragic suicides in Kawerau in 2010 and 2011. It includes a range of organisations designed to provide a cross-agency platform for response. The organisations involved include Kia Piki o te Ora and iwi groups such as Ngati Tuwharetoa Tuwharetoa ki Kawarau Hauora Trust and Tuhoe Hauora Trust as well as the police mental health services Child Youth and Family the Ministry of Youth Development local colleges and Victim Support. 
Rahui Katene 
: What resourcing is available to directly assist families in Kawerau who have suffered over 14 deaths of their young people over the last 18 months? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Clinical Advisory Services Aotearoa is contracted through the Ministry of Health to provide postvention services and does this through its community postvention response service. The service is actively working in the area along with the local Kia Piki provider Toi te Ora and I understand that the Ministry of Education has also put resources into local schools. In addition a group of key agencies including community agencies meets regularly to screen those affected by the suicides and to provide support within the college to the young people who are living with the consequences. Mana Social Services Trust has seen a number of youths and whanau following recent tragic events. 
Rahui Katene 
: How many of the suicides identified in Kawerau are young Maori and what approach has he made to ensure whanau have access to Te Whakauruora which is a community action - focused resource to build capacity in Maori suicide prevention? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: There are believed to have been between nine and 12 suspected suicides in Kawerau in 2010 and 2011 and a further four attempted suicides. Almost all of the suspected and attempted cases are of young people 14 to 18 years old and they are predominantly Maori and male. In response to the second part of the member’s question I am not aware of whether Te Whakauruora has been used in this specific situation but I encourage its use and I will certainly be following up with officials over its availability to the wider Kawerau community.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19591] 
4. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What support has the Corrections Department provided in Canterbury since the first earthquake struck in September last year? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am very pleased to advise that since the first earthquake in September last year offenders on community work have provided over 170000 hours of free labour to help to clean up Christchurch. Offenders on community work have been used to clear streets assist in getting schools and early childhood centres back up and running and tidy up parks reserves and marae. Following last week’s aftershocks offenders on community work were quickly sent out to the eastern suburbs where they have helped non-profit organisations community groups and others to clear the silt and liquefaction from their properties. The department will continue to ensure that offenders on community work are available to help out in the months ahead. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What actions have the department and staff taken to support their colleagues in Christchurch? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: From today Christchurch-based corrections staff will be receiving the benefit of the department’s Give your Mates a Day Trust. The trust was set up after February’s earthquake and nearly 1000 staff from around the country have kindly donated a day of their leave. The department put the net dollar value of that leave in a trust. Due to the generosity and goodwill of staff a total of $166430 has been raised. This money is now being distributed to Christchurch corrections staff and payments will be completed by this Friday.
Finlayson Christopher: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19627] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I enjoyed that contribution by Mr Locke. I half expected some kind of rant about Philby Burgess and Maclean at one stage but there we are. Can I just say something about the contribution of Mr Parker who spoke about new section 4AAA(2) inserted by clause 5A. My understanding about the way this clause was drafted was that the Human Rights Commission made a submission and then Dr Norman and Mr Goff got together and refashioned it and that is how it emerged. But I am not sure whether Dr Norman and Mr Goff actually dealt with subsection (2). Where I think subsection (2) comes from is that it is modelled on section 11 of the Policing Act 2008. Subpart 1 of that legislation sets out the principles and functions of the police and the roles of others acknowledged. Then section 11 states: “Nothing in sections 8 to 10—(a) imposes particular duties on or gives particular powers to the Police the Commissioner … or (b) affects the powers functions or duties of any agency”. So I think we get subsection (2) from section 11 of the Policing Act. The effect of it is that it does not impose new duties or give new powers to the Security Intelligence Service but it provides explicit recognition of those matters that should guide the working of the Security Intelligence Service. I suppose it is more in the nature of belt and braces but I think that is the legislative history of how we get this particular formulation.
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19653] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Parliamentary Delegation Queensland Legislative Assembly 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Parliamentary Delegation Queensland Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:673;Page:19587] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation from the Legislative Assembly of Queensland led by Mr Kerry Shine MP Chairperson of the Industry Education Training and Industrial Relations Committee is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that that delegation be welcomed.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19622] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 3 (Boscawen Calvert Hide); Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 (Douglas Roy H); Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67 Noes 56. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Auchinvole Chris: Motions — Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010—Approval 
Auchinvole Chris: Motions — Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010—Approval 
[Volume:673;Page:19640] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I recall the subject of Government motion No. 3 Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010 coming to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 9 November 2010. The papers were accompanied by photographs and illustrations. I have one right here courtesy of my colleague Jami-Lee Ross. These dogs are voracious carnivores. They are equipped with huge jaws formidable teeth an aggressive temperament and heavily muscled bodies—physical features all of which could be put to a very very bad use. None of the features of this particular breed held any virtue in the mind of the select committee. The order added the breed Perro de Presa Canario to schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Say it again. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Certainly—Perro de Presa Canario. This order forbids the importation of this breed to New Zealand. Although I fully support the comments of the honourable member Phil Twyford I say that these dogs have not actually committed any of those aggressive things for a very good reason: none of the breed is here and never ever will be as long as we adopt this order. The important thing is that we do not need these dogs. We have never had a need for this type of animal in New Zealand we do not have a need for this type of animal in New Zealand and we never will have a need for this type of animal in New Zealand. This motion should be approved and supported. Thank you.
Voting — Correction—Television New Zealand Amendment Bill 
Voting — Correction—Television New Zealand Amendment Bill 
[Volume:673;Page:19657] 
Voting 
Correction—Television New Zealand Amendment Bill 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I need to advise the House that there has been an error in the voting in the Committee stage of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. The results of the two votes were incorrectly announced. On the vote on the closure motion for clauses 1 to 3 the Noes were announced as 55. They should be 56. There was an addition error. On the motion that the report on the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill be adopted the Noes were announced as 55. The correct number is 56. In line with Standing Order 148(2) the vote is corrected. This is to inform members that the record will be corrected as well. Thank you for your forbearance.
Kaye Nikki: Motions — Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010—Approval 
Kaye Nikki: Motions — Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010—Approval 
[Volume:673;Page:19643] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I support the motion on the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010. I will make just a couple of points. Our approach in the area of dog legislation is really to ensure that we do not make knee-jerk reactions. We support a very considered approach to these issues.  
I will make a couple of points in response to some of the members opposite. Some of the research on this dog breed—as has already been mentioned by a number of speakers—has shown that it has been bred specifically for fighting. We know that the presa Canario dog breed has been banned for both importation and sale in Australia. In some of my research into this breed of dog one of the things that were very clear was that this is a very big dog. It weighs a huge amount. I think the minimum weight of a male dog is 100 pounds which gives us some idea of the scale of this breed of dog. One of the colloquial terms for this breed of dog is the Canary catch dog but my argument is that we know that this dog has been bred for fighting. It is banned for importation and sale in Australia. There is a history of some very violent attacks that have ended in death so I am very pleased to support this motion.  
I will make just a couple of other points about our general approach to dog legislation. A first principles review is happening. That is the best thing we can do because it can be a very emotional area. We have all seen on the news some of the situations that have happened. We are interested in ensuring that there is a review that enables the regime to be effective efficient and fair so that people do not respond in an ad hoc way. I support this motion because I think it will provide better safety in our community. We should not have these dogs in New Zealand. I support this motion on the order.
Visitors — Australia—Parliamentary Delegation Queensland Legislative Assembly 
Visitors — Australia—Parliamentary Delegation Queensland Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:673;Page:19587] 
Wednesday 22 June 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Parliamentary Delegation Queensland Legislative Assembly 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation from the Legislative Assembly of Queensland led by Mr Kerry Shine MP Chairperson of the Industry Education Training and Industrial Relations Committee is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that that delegation be welcomed.
Bridges Simon: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19633] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Personal Explanations — Tabling on Documents—Date Cited for Resource Consent 
Personal Explanations — Tabling on Documents—Date Cited for Resource Consent 
[Volume:673;Page:19605] 
Personal Explanations 
Tabling on Documents—Date Cited for Resource Consent 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Pursuant to Speaker’s ruling 167/7 I have taken the first opportunity to correct a statement I made in regard to the date of the resource consent when seeking leave to table a document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking leave to make a personal explanation? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I am. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In question time today relying on a summary provided by the library I indicated that the date of the resource consent was 1998. In fact it was June 1999.
Voting — Correction—Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
Voting — Correction—Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:673;Page:19624] 
Voting 
Correction—Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will give the member another call but I have to deal with a matter. During the course of the questions on clauses 1 to 3 of the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill the result was incorrectly announced as 67 for the Ayes and 56 for the Noes. It should have been announced as 65 for the Ayes and 55 for the Noes. I inform the Committee of this and the record will show the amended numbers.
Mallard Trevor: Personal Explanations — Tabling on Documents—Date Cited for Resource Consent 
Mallard Trevor: Personal Explanations — Tabling on Documents—Date Cited for Resource Consent 
[Volume:673;Page:19605] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Pursuant to Speaker’s ruling 167/7 I have taken the first opportunity to correct a statement I made in regard to the date of the resource consent when seeking leave to table a document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking leave to make a personal explanation? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I am. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In question time today relying on a summary provided by the library I indicated that the date of the resource consent was 1998. In fact it was June 1999.
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19653] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19592] 
6. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What parenting support is being made available for first-time parents? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Last year 63000 babies were born in New Zealand.  
Raising Children in New Zealand 
 is a new parenting DVD which will be launched at Parliament this evening. In partnership with the Lion Foundation Barnardos Plunket and Television New Zealand we are helping first-time mums and dads get quality advice on raising their newborn babies. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What other initiatives for parents is the Government supporting? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This DVD is just one of a range of initiatives that this Government is putting investment in for new parents and families. Many of the initiatives have come from the Minister of Health and have been very well received out there. In my own area every year we spend around $50 million on parenting support. Under this Budget we saw an expansion of the HIPPY (Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters) under the Minister of Education $2.4 million for parenting support for foster carers and grandparents raising grandchildren $21.3 million for Well Child services and more than $550 million for early childhood education. This Government in a small way is providing that sort of support for parents.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19622] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 3 (Boscawen Calvert Hide); Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 (Douglas Roy H); Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67 Noes 56.
Bridges Simon: Regulatory Improvement Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Regulatory Improvement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3050] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to be speaking on the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I am very excited about it in fact. We have had some valuable contributions today from a number of speakers. I pay tribute firstly to the Hon Rodney Hide. I agree with the Hon Lianne Dalziel: let us do something that we do not do enough— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the debate is interrupted. 
Debate interrupted.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3018] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Ministers must take the first available opportunity to correct answers that are incorrect. It is now clear from the evidence that I understand has been tabled that Pansy Wong was incorrect in her answer and she must take this opportunity to correct it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Whether Ministers take opportunities to correct answers is a matter for Ministers.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3018] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table my letter to the Minister for Climate Change Issues offering to extend cooperation in order to get the emissions trading scheme legislation passed on an expeditious basis. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3017] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order? 
SUE MORONEY 
: Yes it is a point of order. It is highly unusual when a Minister has made an accusation— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume her seat immediately. She cannot do that. The matter has been dealt with by the House. When the House deals with a matter that is it. I will not have the time of the House wasted. The matter has been dealt with. I warn both members that I will not tolerate that. I have ruled in the case of Mr Chauvel and in the case of—[ 
Interruption 
] The member will sit down. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think he was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And there will be silence. I warn the honourable member Sue Moroney that the House has dealt with her point of order and that is the end of the matter.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3017] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation on the answer from the Minister of Women’s Affairs that made the accusation that I had gatecrashed a conference. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation on that matter. Is there any objection? [ 
Interruption 
] There will be silence in the House. I am on my feet. All members will be quiet. I have sought leave on behalf of the member for her to make a personal explanation on that matter but I could not determine whether the House was granting leave. Is the House prepared to grant leave for the personal explanation that has been sought? No the House has not granted leave for that purpose. That is the privilege of the House.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3017] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 My concern is that the impression given by the Minister was that perhaps that cooperation had not been forthcoming. I wrote to the Minister some 6 weeks ago— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat and so will the Hon Dr Nick Smith. There is no need to take this matter further. This is not in my view a personal explanation and I terminate it.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3017] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 In answer to questions today the Minister for Climate Change Issues responded on one point that he hoped that Opposition members would be constructive in assisting to confront the very complex questions arising out of the climate change legislation because of the importance that they had for the country. My concern is that I wrote to the Minister some 6 weeks ago— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is quite evident that this is not an explanation about a matter that is of particular concern or relevance to that member from everything he is prefacing it with. I think it would be quite appropriate for the privilege that the House has extended to be terminated by you in this case. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That is a discretion that you have Mr Speaker but you cannot do it on the basis of a point of order. A personal explanation cannot be interrupted by a point of order. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: With all due respect to the efforts of the Hon Trevor Mallard to cast himself as some sort of kaumatua to the House the Speaker has absolute discretion as to how the Standing Orders are implemented in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear any more on this. I believe I did have the authority to hear the point of order raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I do have a concern. Leave to make personal explanations is a very important privilege conferred by the House and it should be used only where the matter is one that impacts on the member personally and he or she needs to give an explanation because the matter is causing very significant issues for the member concerned. So far from what the member has said to the House we have not heard anything that makes this statement come close to being a personal explanation. I will allow the member to make it clear very quickly how this is a personal explanation otherwise I will terminate it.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3016] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat for a moment. It is a difficult one because members can seek to make a personal explanation only on their own behalf not on behalf of other members. I guess it is up to the House whether the House is prepared to allow leave for such a personal explanation. I put it to the House. Leave is sought for that personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is no objection but I do ask the member to make sure it is a personal explanation.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3016] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 One of the answers given by the Minister related to the position of Opposition members on the select committee and I believe it has the potential to mislead the House concerning their conduct and particularly in my own case I would like to be able to clarify it for the House.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3016] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 349 arising out of an answer that was given earlier by the Minister for Climate Change Issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the House need a little more guidance? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A personal explanation is about a matter pertaining to a member. Giving a personal explanation about a Minister’s answer is right outside the scope. On the basis of what we have heard we could not grant leave for that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I agree with the Hon Gerry Brownlee. The member would need to be a little clearer as to the personal explanation he seeks to make.
Joyce Steven: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 6 to Minister 5 May 
Joyce Steven: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 6 to Minister 5 May 
[Volume:654;Page:2998] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Under Standing Order 349 I seek leave to make a correction to an answer I gave to question No. 6 on Tuesday 5 May. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In researching the response to an oral question today I discovered that I had inadvertently used a wrong figure on Tuesday in question time in response to supplementary questioning referring to the Waterview Connection business case. The correct figure for the project financing costs is $550 million not the $200 million figure I used on Tuesday. This correction does not change the total cost—as identified in the business case and referred to in Parliament—of $2.77 billion. I apologise to the House for the error.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3018] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask you whether according to past practice the fact that a member has been denied leave to make a personal explanation is a factor that you would take into account when a question of privilege is being considered by you for reference to the Privileges Committee? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot make such a comment. Every matter of privilege is dealt with absolutely on its own merits and according to the Standing Orders of the House. I will remind members that it is not something that makes me particularly pleased when leave is sought to make a personal explanation and it is denied. But the honourable member will recollect that he himself has denied members the opportunity to make personal explanations. The matter has been dealt with. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table evidence of my registration at the Business and Professional Women’s Conference held in Masterton during the past weekend. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that evidence. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3010] 
9.  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What announcements have recently been made on improving New Zealand’s trade opportunities? 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 I recently announced that we have resumed trade negotiations with Hong Kong and those negotiations are in fact taking place right now. Those negotiations along with the recently signed free-trade agreement with the Association of South-east Asian Nations are a means to insure ourselves against the growth of protectionism in certain markets and also clearly to create new business opportunities that will give New Zealand exporters a competitive advantage. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What are the potential benefits of a successful free-trade agreement with Hong Kong? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: The Hong Kong market is a significant market for New Zealand. It is one of our top 20 export markets. It is our fourth-largest source of foreign investment. It is also an important conduit for trade with China and has been for many years. An agreement would align if you like the customs territory of Hong Kong with that of China though I hope we will be able to go rather further than that in the negotiations particularly in respect of services. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How does the Minister propose to mitigate the negative effects his Government’s backward position on climate change is having on our relationships with trading partners particularly in the European Union which has placed a very high priority on tackling climate change and in the United States where legislation before Congress would authorise trade retaliation against nations refusing to price carbon? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: I think the member is getting rather ahead of the facts here. Not a single Minister or official that I am aware of has raised that possibility with either me or any senior New Zealand officials. The member is simply speculating on what might happen in the future. I will again be meeting with Mariann Fischer Boel the European Union Agriculture Commissioner in Austria next week. I would be astonished if she raises that with me. I will also be going to Washington DC to meet with the new US Trade Representative Ron Kirk and I would be simply flabbergasted should he raise that issue with me. I think the member needs to obtain a rather clearer understanding of the facts.
Norman Russel William: Maori Trustee Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Norman Russel William: Maori Trustee Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3027] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am taking a call to speak briefly on the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. The Green Party is voting for this bill. We support proper clarification of the role of the Maori Trustee and recognise the fraught historical and contemporary issues that tangata whenua have experienced around structures created by a colonising Government. We hope this bill will be a positive part of the jigsaw of justice as opposed to a confusing status quo. 
As a Pakeha on the outside of this issue but with a commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi I am supporting my colleague Metiria Turei’s view on the development of this bill. I would like to say one thing inspired by mana whenua. Concepts and structures such as trustee incorporation land court and beneficiary have been used to disenfranchise tangata whenua since the 1800s. The assumption is that Western instruments can liberate indigenous people from their oppression but in effect they have operated to destroy collectivity and haputanga to benefit the few and alienate the resources. As Moana Jackson and others have said the name of names is the mother of all things. So with some apprehension we vote yes to this bill.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Chamber Audio and Third Readings—Speaker’s Rulings 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Chamber Audio and Third Readings—Speaker’s Rulings 
[Volume:654;Page:2998] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. On the first issue I say that I have not yet satisfied myself in following up on that inquiry. The matter has been investigated and I have a report on it. I am following up on the matter and I will come back to the honourable member once I have that information. With respect to the second matter I am aware of that situation having arisen and I will follow it up for the honourable member.
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Chamber Audio and Third Readings—Speaker’s Rulings 
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Chamber Audio and Third Readings—Speaker’s Rulings 
[Volume:654;Page:2998] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It concerns two unrelated matters. The first is that some weeks ago I raised by way of a point of order concerns about the amplification system in the Chamber. You undertook to obtain a report and presumably to advise the House in due course. To my knowledge that advice has not yet been forthcoming. The second matter was that last Thursday during the course of the third reading debate on a bill whose name temporarily escapes me I raised a point of order regarding the scope of third reading debates with one of your Assistant Speakers. The Assistant Speaker undertook to obtain a ruling and to come back to the House on that matter. I just wonder whether you could update me on progress in respect of both of those issues.
Election Petition — Selwyn 
Election Petition — Selwyn 
[Volume:654;Page:2997] 
Thursday 7 May 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Election Petition 
Selwyn 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I present the determination of the High Court in the matter of an election petition relating to the Selwyn electoral district. The determination set out at paragraph 128 of the decision reads as follows: “Pursuant to section 243 Electoral Act 1993 we determine and certify to the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the first respondent Amy Adams was duly elected as the member of Parliament for the Selwyn electorate at the general election in 2008.” Copies of the determination are available from the Bills Office and the full text of the decision will be published on the “Judicial Decisions of Public Interest” web page.
Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3011] 
10.  
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Will he as part of the Government’s review of the potential future role of the New Zealand Special Air Service in Afghanistan seek a legal opinion from relevant Government departments on whether any such deployment would be consistent with international law and in particular the Charter of the United Nations; if so will he seek leave to table any such advice before the House in advance of any Government decision? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: There is no such review as the member described. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: How can the Minister then assure this House and the country that our defence forces are acting lawfully overseas if he does not have the assurance of such a legal opinion? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The New Zealand Government always ensures that its New Zealand Defence Force deployments are made pursuant to the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and the New Zealand Defence Force always acts in accordance with the requirements of international law. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can the Minister confirm the Prime Minister’s statement that any deployment by the SAS into Afghanistan would occur only if New Zealand were confident there was an exit strategy for the coalition forces; if so does the Minister have that confidence? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would not seek to confirm or otherwise that member’s representation of the Prime Minister’s comments. The Government does not discuss SAS deployments in detail for security reasons and that is exactly the response that that party gave when it was in Government.
Mallard Trevor: Speaker’s Rulings — Tabling of Documents—Ministers Seeking Leave 
Mallard Trevor: Speaker’s Rulings — Tabling of Documents—Ministers Seeking Leave 
[Volume:654;Page:2998] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thank you for your considered ruling. It is clearly an area where there has been some greyness in the past and this ruling has clarified it.
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Tabling of Documents—Ministers Seeking Leave 
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Tabling of Documents—Ministers Seeking Leave 
[Volume:654;Page:2997] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yesterday a point of order was raised about Ministers tabling papers in the House. Papers may be presented to the House or tabled in the House by leave. Presentation and tabling by leave are two distinct procedures. 
The presentation of a paper to the House takes place off the floor of the House. Standing Order 362 allows the Speaker and Ministers to present a paper by delivering it to the Clerk on any working day but prior to 1 p.m. on a sitting day. A Minister may not present a paper under Standing Order 362 while the House is sitting. 
During the course of a sitting any member including a Minister may seek leave to table a document. Only the Speaker under Standing Order 362(1) and a Minister who is presenting papers relating to the Budget following the delivery of the Budget or who has introduced an Appropriation Bill under Standing Order 366 may present a paper in the House without leave. Standing Order 368 in allowing a document to be tabled by leave of the House makes no distinction between members and Ministers. Both must seek leave to do so. However unlike members this is not the only option available to Ministers. A Minister may also under Standing Order 362 present a paper off the floor of the House by delivering it to the Clerk.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:654;Page:2997] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 As soon as those bills are available we will make a decision about their release. The member will be aware that when bills are introduced under urgency they are not tabled prior to that time. However in order to ensure that there is as much good process as possible certainly the bill that is to go through all stages will be available to parties prior to the urgency motion.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:654;Page:2997] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to bills currently on the Order Paper. However it is anticipated that on Wednesday urgency will be accorded to the introduction and passing of bills pertaining and relating to Auckland governance and some other first readings.
Smith Lockwood: Election Petition — Selwyn 
Smith Lockwood: Election Petition — Selwyn 
[Volume:654;Page:2997] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I present the determination of the High Court in the matter of an election petition relating to the Selwyn electoral district. The determination set out at paragraph 128 of the decision reads as follows: “Pursuant to section 243 Electoral Act 1993 we determine and certify to the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the first respondent Amy Adams was duly elected as the member of Parliament for the Selwyn electorate at the general election in 2008.” Copies of the determination are available from the Bills Office and the full text of the decision will be published on the “Judicial Decisions of Public Interest” web page.