edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Flavell Te Ururoa: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11587] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to refer back to the discussion before but when I heard you read out Rahui Katene’s amendments I thought I heard you say only two of them. I cannot recall the numbers but I am advised that we had three Supplementary Order Papers and I just wanted to check that we had all three of them grouped together. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I can confirm for the member what I read out for Rahui Katene in the first instance to ease his concerns. I referred to the amendment relating to the Treaty of Waitangi set out in Supplementary Order Papers 140 and 141 and a typescript amendment to insert a new clause 46AB. All three amendments were dealt with. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hone Harawira to clause 23 be agreed to: 
to omit new section 54 and substitute the following new section: 
“54Board promoting issues of significance for mana whenua groups and mataawaka of Tamaki Makaurau 
The Board and its composition functions and powers will be determined following discussion between Auckland City Manawhenua Iwi and hapu and the Crown with discussions to begin on 30 June 2011. If agreement on changes cannot be reached by 30 September 2011 the existing clauses will be introduced as an amendment to the Act with effect from 1 November 2011.”
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11587] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11586] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Shane Jones be agreed to: 
to omit new section 54 in clause 23; 
to omit new Part 7 in clause 45 and substitute the following part: 
“Part 7 
“Elected Maori Councillors 
“67Auckland Transition Agency to create Maori seats 
“(1)The Auckland Transition Agency must ensure that Auckland is divided into 2 Maori electoral districts for the purposes of electing councillors to represent the Maori people. 
“(2)The Auckland Transition Agency must ensure that people on the Maori electoral roll can vote for candidates contesting the Maori electoral districts.”; and 
to omit schedule 2.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11584] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I did not quite catch the reference earlier to the result of the vote on Rahui Katene’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It was not agreed to. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: After that another one was put up. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: They were all put together as one amendment. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I see. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That was agreed to as I understand it by the leave of the House. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Phil Twyford be agreed to: 
to omit clause 18; 
to insert the following clause after clause 39: 
39AFull powers of local boards to be determined by Local Government Commission 
Section 16 is amended by inserting the following subsections after subsection (3): 
(4)Notwithstanding anything in this section or any other enactment the Local Government Commission must on or before 1 August 2010 determine the full powers of the local boards. 
(5)a determination made under section 16— 
“(a)is given effect to by Order in Council; and 
“(b)has effect on and from 1 November 2010.”; 
to omit from clause 45 new Part 4; 
to omit from clause 45 new Part 5; 
to insert the following clause: 
45AStructure of Auckland Council activities and assets 
The Auckland Council has sole responsibility for determining the structure of all its activities and assets.; and 
to omit from the item relating to section 111(1A) of the Local Electoral Act 2001 of schedule 3 “50” and substitute “5”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11584] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 140 and 141 and the following amendment in the name of Rahui Katene to be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 46A: 
46ABPrinciples of the treaty of Waitangi 
This Part must be interpreted and administered so as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11584] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11579] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I will take a brief call because we have heard about the Waitakere Ranges. Carmel Sepuloni has put forward an amendment supposedly to protect the Auckland Centennial Memorial Park. I do not know how many times we have explained this but I will explain it one last time. 
There is no necessity for this amendment if we consider how the protection operates. The Auckland Centennial Memorial Park is contained within the existing boundaries of the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park—which I think Mr Cunliffe should know but does not appear to—and that is protected in perpetuity by an Order in Council under the Local Government Act 2002. I am sorry that Mr Cunliffe does not appreciate that. I should also point out that the ranges are protected by the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act which stays intact. Again I am sure that Mr Cunliffe must have overlooked that.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
[Volume:663;Page:11509] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member if I implied that in this particular case. But I assure the Hon Gerry Brownlee that matters have come to my attention from members of the Opposition by way of letter in respect of the privilege of the House. It has been my view on the odd occasion that the use of information has been what I would call reckless. I have not considered it to be a matter that reaches the bar required for it to be a matter of privilege but I am troubled by the reckless use of information anywhere in the House. I do not mean by just Ministers; I mean anywhere in the House. This is the House of Representatives and we are Parliament. Members should be careful with information. But I certainly did not mean to imply that the Hon Anne Tolley had been reckless with information on this occasion. I accept the point made by the Hon Gerry Brownlee.
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11570] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I take a brief call to comment on the three Supplementary Order Papers that we have worked through. It is important to appreciate that the Auckland Council will be operating under the Local Government Act 2002 which already provides the framework to recognise the Treaty. Those amendments in effect would make no difference because that framework is already provided. I point out however that although the Act provides that framework it also recognises that the contract envisaged in the Treaty is with the Crown—the Government—not the council. Thank you.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11590] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Parts 1 to 5 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Parts 1 to 5 schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11568] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I think members will enjoy this. I have here an amendment in the name of Darien Fenton. The proposal is that the Local Government Commission reconsider the northern boundary by 1 August 2010 to exclude the northern part of Rodney from the Auckland Council area. This amendment has been put forward seriously by the Labour Party for this Parliament to consider. I wonder whether Darien Fenton discussed this with George Hawkins or with someone who is a little bit familiar with local government. I want to explain what the amendment would mean. 
Darien Fenton 
: Don’t be arrogant. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I am not being arrogant; I am about to explain to the member what would happen if we agreed to her amendment. 
First of all there would be no time to prepare the electoral roll for the October local body elections because the boundaries would not be drawn until 1 August. So that would mean that we could not have any local body elections in Auckland for the new Auckland Council or for any of the local boards. I am seriously amazed that the Labour Party is recommending that course of action when Labour members have been standing up and talking about local democracy. That is why I wish that Darien Fenton had discussed this with George Hawkins. 
More particularly—and I think members will be a bit shocked to know this—the amendment would also invalidate the entire election for the Northland Regional Council. so we would not be able to have any elections for the Northland Regional Council. Also in terms of the new local body north of Rodney which I guess the Labour Party wants there would be no local body elections. So I do find it a bit rich that on the one hand we are getting lectured about democracy while on the other hand Labour has put forward an amendment that would eliminate local democracy right through Auckland and right up to the North Cape. I am sorry but this Government cannot support such an anti-democratic measure.
Carter John: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11566] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee to close this debate at 9.20 and to take at that time the Minister’s amendments separately to be followed by the amendment from George Hawkins to be followed then by the amendment from Paul Hutchinson and to be followed then by amendments in the order that the Clerk or you will determine; and where members have more than one amendment for those amendments be taken as one. For example Dave Clendon has six Supplementary Order Papers on the Table and so his six amendments would be taken as one; Phil Twyford for example has four—as I understand it; he may have more—so his amendments would be taken as one. I seek leave of the Committee for that to be done. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11588] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 43: 
43ARequirement for Local Government Commission to reconsider northern boundary to exclude Northern Rodney 
Section 33 is amended by adding the following subsections: 
“(8)Notwithstanding anything in this section or any other enactment the Local Government Commission must on or before 1 August 2010 set a new northern boundary for Auckland that— 
“(a)excludes the northern Rodney area; and 
“(b)generally follows the southern boundary office of the Northern ward of Rodney District. 
“(9)In determining where the boundary should be set and how to define northern Rodney the Local Government Commission must ensure that the area of Rodney district removed from Auckland by the operation of subclause (8)— 
“(a)be included in Kaipara district and Northern Region; and 
“(b)determine all matters arising from the boundary adjustment it is required to make under paragraph (a) (for example the transfer of responsibilities and assets); and 
“(c)without limiting paragraphs (a) and (b) act in accordance with Part 2 of the Schedule; and 
“(d)notwithstanding that the Commission may already have made a determination under section (1) the commission will exercise its power to amend provided by section (5).”
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
[Volume:663;Page:11509] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot now litigate by way of a point of order such a matter. The Minister has corrected her answer in the way that she sees fit and that is not a matter for litigation by way of a point of order in the House. Let me make that very clear.
Moroney Sue: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
Moroney Sue: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
[Volume:663;Page:11509] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate the discussion that has been had about correcting information when it has been incorrectly put before the House whether or not that be by accident but the clarification and correction that the Minister has made is not the correction that—
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11514] 
5. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Has she received any progress reports on the Government’s commitment to boost the literacy and numeracy skills of prisoners? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 It is simply not good enough that up to 90 percent of prisoners cannot read and write well and 80 percent have difficulty with basic maths. Our Government is committed to improving the educational skills of prisoners. We know that those who find jobs when they released are less likely to reoffend. I am pleased to advise significant progress on this commitment. Over the past financial year 23000 hours of literacy and numeracy tuition have been provided to prisoners and that is an impressive increase of 10000 hours over the same period in the previous year. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Can she outline what else is being done to improve the educational skills of prisoners? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Department of Corrections has run a pilot project to train its own prison industry instructors to deliver literacy and numeracy instruction to prisoners while they are on the job. The pilot has been extremely successful. Since December 2009 99 prisoners have been supported in this way. A further 56 prison industry instructors will now be trained to deliver on-the-job instruction over the next 2 years. New contracts are also being negotiated with external providers to further expand numeracy and literacy education in our prisons over the next 3 years. It is such a shame that Labour never did a thing.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11589] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of H V Ross Robertson to clause 111 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) the following paragraph after paragraph (b): 
(ba)establish a Senior Citizens Advisory Panel; and 
to insert the following subclause after subclause (3): 
(3A)The Purposes of the Senior Citizens Advisory Panel are— 
(a)to identify and communicate to the Council the interests and preferences of the Senior Citizens of Auckland in relation to— 
(i)the content of the strategies policies plans and bylaws of the Council; and 
(ii)any matters that the Panel considers to be of particular interest or concern to the Senior Citizens of Auckland; and 
(b)to advise the mayor and the Council’s governing body and local boards of the Council processes and mechanisms for engagement with Senior Citizens in Auckland.
Anderton Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Anderton Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11513] 
4. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is it Government policy not to sell State-owned assets in the future? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No. Government departments Crown entities and State-owned enterprises regularly buy and sell assets and that practice will continue. As Trevor Mallard said: “Every State-owned enterprise sells non-core assets many of them on a weekly basis.” 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Is it the policy of the Prime Minister and his Government to keep this pledge he made in the  
Dominion Post 
 on October 22 2008 2 weeks before the general election in answer to a reader’s written question: “I am ruling out selling Kiwibank at any point in the future.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Our policy is not to sell any assets in this term. What happens in future terms is something we will have to consider as we go into future elections. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Is the Prime Minister bound by the pledge he made during the TV3 interview in the leaders’ debate on November 3 2008 5 days before the general election that “National would not sell Kiwibank at any stage ever. We have ruled it out.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Government’s policy is that we will not be selling assets in this term. We will come back in the second term with our policy then. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the current policy of the Government is the same as the policy of November 3 2008—I am sorry Mr Speaker. That was the question I have just asked. 
Hon Members 
: It’s Alzheimer’s! 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Well at least— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not have the member using his open microphone and members need to be reasonable with their interjections. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: At least they are my own questions. When the Prime Minister says “We’ll let you know about the sale of State-owned assets if the National Party is elected for a second term.” does he accept that this is a different position from his repeated pledges before the last election that he would never sell Kiwibank ever? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I do not.
Street Maryan: Motions — Burma—Detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi 
Street Maryan: Motions — Burma—Detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi 
[Volume:663;Page:11507] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to move members’ motion No. 2 without debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I move  
That this House call upon the military rulers of Burma to reinstate the political and democratic rights of Aung San Suu Kyi and allow her to contest the forthcoming general election. 
Motion agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
[Volume:663;Page:11508] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable Minister. It is an interesting issue and I appreciate the input of all members. I thank the Minister for correcting her answer. Obviously correcting an answer is a matter for the Minister to fix up and Ministers should do it without delay. They should come to the House and seek to do so by way of a personal explanation. 
I appreciate the way that the Hon Darren Hughes has raised the issue because I think we do accept that at times in the haste and in the short time to think about and provide an answer to a supplementary question sometimes unintentional errors are made with data. That is why it is important that Ministers should correct them at the earliest opportunity. 
I accept the point again that the Hon Darren Hughes made that these matters are not normally to do with privilege. The test for a complaint about privilege is quite a high one. But I am concerned about the reckless use of information. Members should all be careful with information and that is why I listened carefully to the point of order that the member made. I think there is a difference between getting something wrong and deliberately misleading the House. All I can ask is that when Ministers become aware that they may have provided incorrect information in an answer they move to correct it at the earliest opportunity. I would certainly appreciate their doing that.
Tolley Anne: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
Tolley Anne: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
[Volume:663;Page:11508] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am happy to make the correction; I was intending to. In fact I went straight back from the select committee and that was the first opportunity that I had to correct the  
Hansard 
. My words were “54222 children attended” and I thought I had said “reported attended” which is a different statistic. I accept that I should have said “reported attended” which would have actually been correct. I apologise to the House for that.
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11520] 
9. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What reports has he received updating him on the early results of the anti - drugged driving legislation passed last year? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I received preliminary figures showing that the recently passed anti - drug-driving law is working well and as intended. The police have carried out 182 physical impairment tests and have collected a further 17 blood samples from hospitalised drivers who were unable to undergo a physical impairment test. Of the 169 blood samples analysed so far the vast majority—153—have had drugs or alcohol detected and the remaining 16 have detected nothing. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: How many drivers have been charged with drug-driving in the last 7 months? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: So far 111 drivers have been charged with drug-driving. This has resulted in 47 convictions with 54 cases still waiting to be heard. The fact that the majority of drivers who failed the physical impairment test have drugs in their blood stream shows the testing regime is working as it was intended. Combating drug-driving is a high priority for the Government and an important part of our road safety effort.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
[Volume:663;Page:11508] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to speak briefly on the timing issue and I am really asking you to consider when the first opportunity is. This was drawn to the Minister’s attention at the select committee this morning. My colleague waited until there had been two other points of order to see that the Minister was not rising to make the correction that we expected.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
[Volume:663;Page:11508] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The first point is that no one would want the Hon Darren Hughes to be left in no man’s land. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I mean that seriously. The point has been made that a different piece of information given at a select committee this morning could be interpreted as meaning that an answer given last week to a supplementary question was not the full information that could be disclosed. I am sure since all members of this House are honourable members that the Minister concerned will have heard the concern from the Labour Party about this and will look at the answer to the supplementary question as soon as possible to find out whether the information that was given at that time is inconsistent with the information given at the select committee this morning. Unfortunately we cannot possibly know the full context of the discussion this morning nor do we have the supplementary question that was asked last week before us today. I suggest that the Hon Darren Hughes has done a very good job of making sure that at his first opportunity he has made it clear that he believes there might be the need for some clarification. I am sure that once the Minister has a similar opportunity to consider these matters if a clarification is required it will be forthcoming.
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
[Volume:663;Page:11507] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It follows on from the ruling that you gave last Tuesday in respect of information given in replying to supplementary questions. I think it is an important matter about how information that is incorrect in answers to supplementary questions to the House is corrected—whether it goes through the process of the Minister correcting an answer or whether members have to write to you regarding a breach of privilege. I do not want to get into a debating matter but I will use an example of the wider point about the order that Opposition members should follow. 
Last Thursday there was a question on the numbers involved in early childhood education on which the Minister of Education supplied a number for the children who participate. Today during the estimates hearing the Minister who had given that answer said that when she gave that answer in the House about all children participating she was referring only to 5-year-olds. So the information that had been given in response to the questioner in last Wednesday’s question time was no longer correct and I have the  
Hansard 
 of that. 
We have written to you previously about the information given in answer to supplementary questions and you made a point that I think is a reasonable one: that sometimes if a Minister has to answer four five or six supplementary questions and data or statistics are required it is not always possible to be exactly correct in giving that information so it is not a technical breach of privilege. But where do we stand and what order of process should we follow if a Minister gives a different set of information at an estimates hearing that clearly says the information given in the previous week was not correct unwittingly or otherwise? Should the Opposition members write to you complaining of a breach of privilege—which might seem to be a step too far because it probably is not a breach of privilege in the sense of that term—or do we rely on a Minister coming down and correcting an answer by taking a point of order after he or she has admitted in another forum of the House’s proceedings that an answer was not correct? If the Minister has not corrected the information in the House the time has now passed for us to draw it to your attention by way of a breach of privilege complaint. That leaves us in no man’s land in that regard. I would appreciate your consideration of that point.
Carter Chris: Tabling of Documents — Burma—Human Rights Violations Against Children 
Carter Chris: Tabling of Documents — Burma—Human Rights Violations Against Children 
[Volume:663;Page:11507] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an April 2010 report from Partners Relief and Development a Christian aid organisation and the Free Burma Rangers entitled  
Displaced Childhoods 
 which details the recent human rights violations and international crimes committed against Burma’s internally displaced children by the military junta of General Than Shwe. 
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.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11512] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 He take whakatau e te Mana Whakawa. He paku patai ki a koe kaua mo tenei rangi tonu engari mo nga ra kei mua i te aroaro mo nga patai kua tuhia i te reo Maori; me panui te kaituku patai i te reo Maori me te reo Pakeha me waiho te reo Pakeha ranei? 
[ 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is just a small question to you not for today but for the future in respect of questions written in Maori: should the person asking the question read out the Maori and the English or leave out the English? 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the honourable Te Ururoa Flavell that I regret having to confess that I believe that it is helpful to members to provide both the Maori and the English when the question is in Maori. I say “regret” because if we were bilingual as a people the member would not have to do that. I believe that it assists members to understand the question when the English translation is provided as well as the Maori. It is not the member’s fault; I accept that many of us are not as bilingual as the honourable member himself is.
Tabling of Documents — Burma—Human Rights Violations Against Children 
Tabling of Documents — Burma—Human Rights Violations Against Children 
[Volume:663;Page:11507] 
Tabling of Documents 
Burma—Human Rights Violations Against Children 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an April 2010 report from Partners Relief and Development a Christian aid organisation and the Free Burma Rangers entitled  
Displaced Childhoods 
 which details the recent human rights violations and international crimes committed against Burma’s internally displaced children by the military junta of General Than Shwe. 
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.
Motions — Burma—Detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi 
Motions — Burma—Detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi 
[Volume:663;Page:11507] 
Wednesday 2 June 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Burma—Detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to move members’ motion No. 2 without debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I move  
That this House call upon the military rulers of Burma to reinstate the political and democratic rights of Aung San Suu Kyi and allow her to contest the forthcoming general election. 
Motion agreed to.
Hutchison Paul: Budget Debate 
Hutchison Paul: Budget Debate 
[Volume:663;Page:11529] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Williamson Maurice: Budget Debate 
Williamson Maurice: Budget Debate 
[Volume:663;Page:11448] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers 
[Volume:663;Page:11509] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sure you did not mean any offence in what you just said. But I have to say that when someone makes a mistake it is a mistake; it is not a reckless use of information. I think Ministers would not want the Speaker to convey a message to the public that there was a general reckless use of information—far from it. This was a genuine mistake. It has been corrected and I think when you look at the correction you will see that it is about the interpretation or the use of one word. I think that is particularly pedantic but none the less it is factual material. However to suggest that that was a reckless use of the information is quite wrong.
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11580] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I need to take a call because we are tidying up a couple of language issues. I say to Miss Chadwick that I will be withdrawing the following amendments to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill: the amendment to the heading of clause 74 the clause 74(1) amendment the clause 74(2) amendment and the amendment to clause 110. These are just tidy-up amendments correcting inconsistent language. I draw members’ attention to them. If they pick up just one example from the Supplementary Order Paper members will see the amendment for the heading to clause 74 is to omit “trades waste” and substitute “trade wastes”. Members might think that is a meaningless sort of change but I assure them that across the by-laws of Auckland whether it is “trades waste” “trade wastes” or “trades wastes” makes a difference. 
I take a minute to thank the many many officials across the departments who have worked on this bill. It is enormously complex legislation in terms of scope and in terms of details. I thank especially the people of the Department of Internal Affairs the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Transport but particularly I thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for drafting it and in particular Leeanne O’Brien who does an outstanding job drafting this legislation and keeping us on our toes. It is what we are here for. 
When one thinks about the implications of whether it is “trades waste” “trade waste” or “trade wastes”—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I hear that Mr Rajen Prasad says I should sit down. I notice something odd happening over in the Labour Party. As the night has worn on Mr Stuart Nash has got inexplicably happier and Mr Phil Twyford has got inexplicably angrier. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I question the relevance of the speech of the Minister in the chair. Labour is very keen to debate this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that we have had some very wide-ranging debate. We have been over all sorts of territory that is well beyond the scope of this bill. If the member wants me to cite line chapter and verse I am more than happy to without recourse to  
Hansard 
. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I have covered off the amendments that I needed to.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11441] 
12. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: What progress has been made on reforming New Zealand’s food legislation? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House that a Food Bill modernising our food legislation has been introduced to the House. This is a comprehensive reform giving consumers better and more consistent protection while giving food businesses more certainty and removing unnecessary requirements. 
Shane Ardern 
: What effect will the food bill have on community fundraising activities? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: For a start the Kerikeri jam makers will be able to make jam and the sausages will be back on the sizzle in Timaru without unnecessary bureaucratic rules. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Talofa lava. How can she guarantee that this bill will have no impact on the cake stalls and sausage sizzles that Kiwis rely on when section 93 of the bill says that people are liable to prosecution if they fail to comply with certain requirements under the bill? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As the member knows the bill is based on a risk-based approach depending on the risk of the food concerned. The bill will go to a select committee and if that clause is a concern I am sure that the member will raise it at the select committee during the bill’s proper scrutiny.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Timor-Leste—Minister of Foreign Affairs 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Timor-Leste—Minister of Foreign Affairs 
[Volume:663;Page:11425] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that His Excellency Dr Zacarias Albano da Costa Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed.
Sio Su'a William: Motions — Samoan Language Week—Recognition 
Sio Su'a William: Motions — Samoan Language Week—Recognition 
[Volume:663;Page:11425] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I seek leave to move without notice and without debate a motion relating to Samoan Language Week 2010. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: O Talaleomalie o le Alo o le Tui Atua aua ua ii le Manu ae logo i le vateatea aua le vaiaso Faapitoa o le Gagana Samoa. 
Talofa lava i Lau Afioga i le Fofoga Fetalai faapea afioga i sui mamalu o le Maota Fono o le Palemene o Niu Sila le mamalu o le tapuaiga o Samoa o loo fa‘afofoga mai. Malo le soifua malo le lagi e mama. 
I move  
That this House take note that Samoan Language Week runs from 30 May to 5 June 
. This is a significant day for the more than 130000 Samoans living in New Zealand as well as those Samoans living in Samoa Australia America and throughout the globe. This House will manifest its support and acknowledgment of this special week through members from across all the political parties using Samoan words and phrases as a way to promote le gagana Samoa which is the third most spoken language in New Zealand next to English and te reo Maori and by so doing encourage greater understanding of the Samoan language and culture and therewith send a strong message that New Zealanders at the highest level of decision making embrace this diversity of language as a strength of our nation going forward. 
Motion agreed to. 
Fa‘afetai ma ia faamanuia mai le Atua i lenei taumafaiga.
Goudie Sandra: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11422] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I want to say just a few words. The first thing to say is that I commend the excellent Minister of Agriculture the Hon David Carter. Is it not fantastic to see that the work he has done has seen $8.2 million put aside for animal welfare in the Budget? Is that not outstanding? It is absolutely marvellous. It deserves to be acknowledged. It takes a Government that is about action to overcome a Government that was all about no action over the last 9 years. Nothing was done in the last 9 years under the previous Government. This Government has taken action and particularly this Minister has taken action. He saw the great potential in Simon Bridges the wonderful member of Parliament for Tauranga who brought forward this bill the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. The potential was seen in it. We applauded this bill. It became a Government bill because we acknowledged its importance. I think it is fantastic that we have achieved so much particularly in regard to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I am delighted to support its passage through the House. 
Bill read a second time.
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Statements — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System Technical Review 
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Statements — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System Technical Review 
[Volume:663;Page:11425] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members following concerns expressed by a number of you a technical review of the Chamber audio system is under way. The designers of the system will be here from Wednesday 2 June and preparatory work using local expertise has commenced already. Technicians need to experience the performance of the audio system firsthand. I have therefore authorised two technicians to come into the Chamber today under the supervision of the Serjeant-at-Arms to observe and to listen to the proceedings of the House during question time. They will use the benches to the left and the right of the Chair. The technicians may use sound meters but any equipment will be kept to a minimum and will be such that it does not in any way disrupt the proceedings of the House. Consideration will also be given to technicians occupying empty seats at the back of the House later on in the week. I am determined to get the sound system to perform better for members.
Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Procedure 
Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:663;Page:11442] 
Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill 
Procedure 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for all the provisions of the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill to be taken as one question; for members to have unlimited calls of 5 minutes each; for the question on the bill and any amendments proposed thereto to be taken at the conclusion of the debate; and for the motion to divide the bill to be put without further debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Speaker’s Statements — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System Technical Review 
Speaker’s Statements — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System Technical Review 
[Volume:663;Page:11425] 
Speaker’s Statements 
Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System Technical Review 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members following concerns expressed by a number of you a technical review of the Chamber audio system is under way. The designers of the system will be here from Wednesday 2 June and preparatory work using local expertise has commenced already. Technicians need to experience the performance of the audio system firsthand. I have therefore authorised two technicians to come into the Chamber today under the supervision of the Serjeant-at-Arms to observe and to listen to the proceedings of the House during question time. They will use the benches to the left and the right of the Chair. The technicians may use sound meters but any equipment will be kept to a minimum and will be such that it does not in any way disrupt the proceedings of the House. Consideration will also be given to technicians occupying empty seats at the back of the House later on in the week. I am determined to get the sound system to perform better for members.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11417] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 3. 
Question agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11417] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a second time.
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Second Reading 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11400] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It might help in this debate if I could ask through you whether Mr Phil Twyford the member who has resumed his seat has found somewhere in Auckland to stand at the next election. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No the member knows that that is not a point of order.
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11385] 
12. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: Can he guarantee that the process currently under way to select partners in the Government’s ultra-fast broadband initiative will not be delayed to suit the interests of the incumbent carrier Telecom New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 I can confirm that the current process being conducted by Crown Fibre Holdings will not be sped up or slowed down or even remain the same for the benefit of any bidder. Crown Fibre Holdings is currently conducting a competitive process designed to produce the best possible result for New Zealanders. The company has some flexibility in the timetable at its own discretion if that would enhance the outcome for taxpayers and consumers. 
Clare Curran 
: Will he guarantee that the funds the Government has set aside for investing in new fibre infrastructure will remain dedicated to the roll-out of new fibre infrastructure? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes. 
Clare Curran 
: Does he agree that there is no public benefit in diverting funds into a purchase of Telecom’s old copper network? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government has been clear all the way along that it does not intend to spend money purchasing existing infrastructure from any existing bidder. 
Clare Curran 
: When does he expect the first roll-out of ultra-fast broadband resulting from this initiative to occur? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The current expectation is prior to the end of this calendar year which by my count would make it roughly 5 or 6 years ahead of when the previous Government managed to achieve something in the information and communications technology area.