edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Republic of South Africa—Parliamentary Delegation 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Republic of South Africa—Parliamentary Delegation 
[Volume:631;Page:3621] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of South Africa led by Cornelia Carol September is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:631;Page:3621] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Local Government Law Reform Bill the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill the Historic Places Amendment Bill and the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. The first item of business on Tuesday will be the 3-hour debate on the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill including the second reading of the Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House can tell us when he expects the Maori Purposes Bill to be read for its first time. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I imagine that will be in the next mini-sitting of Parliament.
Visitors — Republic of South Africa—Parliamentary Delegation 
Visitors — Republic of South Africa—Parliamentary Delegation 
[Volume:631;Page:3621] 
Thursday 15 June 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Republic of South Africa—Parliamentary Delegation 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of South Africa led by Cornelia Carol September is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Cullen Michael: Responses — Russell Hyslop—Statements made by Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
Cullen Michael: Responses — Russell Hyslop—Statements made by Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
[Volume:632;Page:3841] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move most generously  
That that paper be published. 
Motion agreed to.
Responses — Russell Hyslop—Statements made by Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
Responses — Russell Hyslop—Statements made by Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
[Volume:632;Page:3841] 
Responses 
Russell Hyslop—Statements made by Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a response under Standing Orders 160 to 163 on the application of Mr Russell Hyslop relating to statements made by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen MP on Thursday 6 April 2006. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move most generously  
That that paper be published. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3891] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3891] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3891] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 47 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to clause 2 be agreed to.
Kedgley Sue: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3890] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to very briefly take up the point of the last speaker. I agree with him that we need and should have had here a comprehensive review of the Historic Places Trust. Basically over the last number of decades of the trust’s existence historic buildings throughout our country have been bulldozed. As the Associate Minister pointed out Labour has given additional funding to the Historic Places Trust and we are very pleased about that. But we think it is clear that what is needed is not simply additional money but additional powers because there are numerous examples of the Historic Places Trust being left wringing its hands in despair apparently powerless to act when magnificent heritage buildings are being bulldozed. 
Just recently a historic building in the old historic precinct of Petone was demolished. The Historic Places Trust opposed the proposed demolition of that building but in the end it could do nothing except wring its hands. So we agree completely with the National Party spokesperson in this area that a comprehensive review of the Historic Places Trust is needed. The time has come. The few tinkering technical amendments some of which are not so technical do not begin to get to the heart of the matter. Why are we not giving more teeth to the Historic Places Trust? Why are we sitting on our hands watching more and more magnificent historic buildings in New Zealand be demolished?
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3887] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3883] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3883] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill be now read a third time.  
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3882] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3882] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time. 
Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill read a third time.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3882] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3882] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Litter Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Carter David: Third Readings 
Carter David: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3859] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As one of those who were ejected for interjecting I seek clarification. I thought that the ejection was until the end of question time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No because the questions had ended in effect.
Tisch Lindsay: Third Readings 
Tisch Lindsay: Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3859] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to bring to your attention that during this debate National will be taking four calls and the twelfth call will be split between two members with each having 5 minutes.
Henare Tau: Personal Explanations — Trip to East Timor—1995 Allegations—Inquiry 
Henare Tau: Personal Explanations — Trip to East Timor—1995 Allegations—Inquiry 
[Volume:632;Page:3857] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I left Auckland on the same plane as did the Hon Jim Sutton the Hon Phil Goff the Hon Roger McClay and the Hon Nick Smith. I also left East Timor on the same plane as those people. I carried out my duties in East Timor. I left before the trip to Flores Island which I considered to be a bit of a junket.
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3855] 
11.  
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: What processes will be taken into account to recognise the status use or significance of land acquired under the Public Works Act 1981 with particular reference to Paraparaumu Airport which was originally taken during World War II? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Land at Paraparaumu Airport acquired under the Public Works Act must be disposed of in accordance with that Act. 
Tariana Turia 
: Has the Minister read the report by the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General that states that the Ministry of Transport failed to inform former owners before it sold the airport; if so will there be retrospective legislation to remedy this injustice? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am aware of that report because I read it in my former role as the Minister of Transport. My understanding of that report is that the method by which the airport was privatised and sold was in compliance with the law. 
Darren Hughes 
: Is the Minister aware of any proposals that would attempt to provide processes for former landowners of airports like Paraparaumu Airport that were privatised by the former National Government? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes. I understand that Darren Hughes the member for Otaki has prepared a member’s bill that would provide another process for former landowners particularly around Public Works Act obligations. 
Tariana Turia 
: When will the legislated right to an offer-back be triggered? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The Public Works Act requirements are triggered by disposals of land that come within the purview of that Act. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is the Minister aware of the statement from the local Otaki MP Darren Hughes that there has to be some justice for former owners; and how will justice in the case of Paraparaumu Airport not only be done but be seen to be done? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The original sale of Paraparaumu Airport happened in 1995. My responsibility and powers are limited to dealing with any dispossessions of land made under the Public Works Act.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3852] 
9.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What steps is the Government taking to attract a greater number of major international events to New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Heaps. The Government is providing assistance to organisations bidding to host international events. We are also working with key players to provide the required infrastructure. For example the Government will provide $2 million for new facilities at the Taupo Motorsport Park to enable the hosting of big international motor racing events up to but not including Formula One. They will be the best facilities in New Zealand when they are finished. 
Sue Moroney 
: What evidence has he seen that the Government support for major events is paying off? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: An enormous amount. People will generally be aware that we are hosting the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Recently New Zealand was announced as the host for the 2010 World Rowing Championships. This is a huge win for New Zealand and shows once again that New Zealand has what it takes to host major events. Rowers from an estimated 50 countries are expected to compete at the championships. It is estimated the event will attract around 7000 visitors to New Zealand and contribute an additional $105 million to the economy. In addition it means that the hub of Rotorua Hamilton and Taupo is becoming known more and more as an events hub for New Zealand showing it as an area that is capable of hosting great events and people very well. 
Peter Brown 
: Can I take it from the Minister’s answer that he has no concern about New Zealand’s infrastructure when we handle such events; and by infrastructure I mean roading passenger transport and hospitals? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Certainly I think in the case of the Taupo event the track quality—the roading of the track—will be considerably improved by the investment that is occurring now. As far as public transport is concerned in the rowing I want to compliment the Hamilton City Council which has taken the decision to provide free public transport to and from Hamilton for people who attend that event thereby taking a lot of pressure off the road during that time.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3850] 
7.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Transport Safety 
: What changes are being made to the driver licensing regime for older drivers? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 Last week a new transport rule was signed which will abolish the mandatory on-road driving test for those aged 80 and older from December this year. The changes to older driver licensing will remove the stress and cost of taking the on-road test for most older drivers permitting them to continue to drive for as long as they can do so while ensuring that their safety along with other road users is preserved. 
Darren Hughes 
: What educational and information initiatives are being introduced for older drivers their families and general practitioners to help them understand what the new licensing system will be about? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The following educational initiatives will accompany the introduction of the new older driver licensing system: first new funding for a nationwide expansion of the popular Safe with Age road safety classroom course; second a subsidy for a private on-road driving lesson for Safe with Age course participants; third new educational publications for older people on driving safely maintaining mobility and helping them plan for the future; and lastly regional seminars for general practitioners to educate them about the new licensing changes and what that will mean for general practitioners. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that some general practitioners have some real concerns about having to determine whether an elderly person is fit to drive being the last line of defence so to speak; if so can he give the House an assurance that he has overcome the concerns of those general practitioners? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Representatives from the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners were members of the consultative group that recommended changes to older driver licensing and they were fully involved all the way through. A large amount of work has been done with general practitioners and the reason for having the educational programme which will go on from now is to outline the options available to general practitioners where they are concerned about an older driver’s ability to drive safely even if the driver passes the tests that will be in place—and indeed are already in place. I am very confident that in circumstances where a general practitioner has examined a patient who is 75 or over and has decided that the patient is medically fit but is uncertain about the patient’s ability to drive safely then the general practitioner will refer the patient as necessary for an on-road safety test. But I think that will be a rare event.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3844] 
3.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What proposals if any has he received about changes to the provision of social housing in New Zealand? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Acting Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The Housing New Zealand Corporation allocates social housing on the basis of need. Low-income families qualify for an income-related rent. Last month 98 percent of those houses were in that category. I have seen two contradictory proposals this month. One proposal argued that the provision of State houses in National-held electorates was economic vandalism while the other argued for more money to be spent on housing for low-income families. Perhaps John Key and Anne Tolley should get together and have a conversation. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What other proposed changes to the provision of social housing in New Zealand is the Minister aware of? 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS 
: I have received feedback from yesterday’s meeting of the Social Services Committee in which a member of that committee Mr Clarkson advocated that the Housing New Zealand Corporation should turf out tenants and instead provide cash grants to needy families so that they can rent from private landlords like himself. I am also informed that the chair of that committee Judith Collins moved immediately to clarify that Mr Clarkson a housing spokesperson for her own party was not representing National Party policy. So that we can hear a third contradictory housing policy from the National Party I think it is time for the real housing spokesperson my colleague Phil Heatley to stand up and tell the House exactly what National’s housing policy is.
Wilson Margaret: Responses — Russell Hyslop—Statements made by Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
Wilson Margaret: Responses — Russell Hyslop—Statements made by Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
[Volume:632;Page:3841] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a response under Standing Orders 160 to 163 on the application of Mr Russell Hyslop relating to statements made by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen MP on Thursday 6 April 2006.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:632;Page:3841] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:632;Page:3841] 
Thursday 22 June 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Historic Places Amendment Bill the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill the first reading of the Maori Purposes Bill and any other first readings on the Order Paper. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is it the Government’s intention to move into urgency next Thursday with a 2-week adjournment following? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No.
Tisch Lindsay: Business Statement 
Tisch Lindsay: Business Statement 
[Volume:632;Page:3841] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is it the Government’s intention to move into urgency next Thursday with a 2-week adjournment following?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:632;Page:3841] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Historic Places Amendment Bill the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill the first reading of the Maori Purposes Bill and any other first readings on the Order Paper. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3970] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 2; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6. 
Motion agreed to.
Horomia Parekura: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
Horomia Parekura: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3970] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Purposes Bill be considered by the Maori Affairs Committee 
referred to Maori Affairs Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 21 November 2006 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 195(b) 195(c) and 192.
Jones Shane: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
Jones Shane: Maori Purposes Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3969] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise briefly to take a short call in relation to the Maori Purposes Bill and to isolate what is potentially its most important portion which brings forward a set of parameters that will enable us to go to the next stage in relation to expediting the settlement of Treaty of Waitangi historic claims. 
This evening we heard from my whanaunga Tau Henare in a rather churlish and ill-informed way. Unfortunately in the absence of content he reaches for personality sniping and he not only demonstrated that he does not do it very well but brought forward an old scratched record out of the cupboard. It is a scratched record of former hits. The hits are “What Can I Take to the Party?”. Of course the song that he takes to the party is “What Party? I’ll Join Any Party”. 
Then he was aided by Mr Brownlee and he too trotted out some rather unfortunate things about the Minister of Maori Affairs and showed his ignorance about the fisheries settlement. Of course his song that he takes to the party is “I Ate the Party”. He was followed later in this evening’s discussions by Mr Heatley and we all know that whatever song he brings forward will be “I Bore the Party”. 
We need to remember that although provision is made for an increase in the actual number of Maori Land Court judges they will be appointed as time requires through a very vigorous process. This notion that we will all wake up one Tuesday morning come out of a meeting here in Wellington Auckland Eketahuna or Kaitaia and be deluged with judges is actually wrong. The legislation provides for the bench to increase as the need arises. The need that we have addressed in refining and making some technical amendments to overcome some administrative oversights is normal lawmaking. I think the Opposition is being not only very childish but ill-informed if it thinks it will be able to stop this bill to tidy up a series of administrative oversights. 
I commend this bill and also hope to see a better level of contribution from Mr Brownlee and my whanaunga Tau Henare during the course of people’s submissions and I look forward to the bill coming back and enabling us to strengthen the Maori Land Court address one or three small administrative defects in the fisheries and aquaculture settlement and provide for growth in the number of Maori Land Court judges as they are required. Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a first time.
Pettis Jill: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3950] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 38 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Carter Chris: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Carter Chris: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3948] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I would like to make a short contribution first of all to thank the National Party and those other parties in the Chamber that will be supporting this legislation which is as the member for United Future said about a data-sharing programme that will ultimately benefit those in State houses who may well not be receiving the full entitlement they are entitled to. The bill is also to avoid that serious issue I spoke about earlier whereby people can inadvertently be overpaid in their benefits. This will help to correct that sort of situation. So it is very pleasing to hear some positive comments from the Opposition. 
Of course we did hear a number of other rather foolish things. I heard some comments earlier about boarders. I would like to remind the Committee that State house tenants have been able to have boarders since the 1970s. Sadly a lot of the time between then and now was spent under a National Government but National did nothing about it because—well why would they? Two-thirds of boarders are family members and who would want to deny the chance of a grandparent a parent or adult children to stay in a State house? As I said that is a situation that has existed since the 1970s. 
We also heard Mr Clarkson say some positive things about the need to give support to people who need it. I am sure I do not need to remind him that we do indeed have a list of 11000 tenants who are waiting to get into social housing. The previous National Government sold 13000 of those State houses. Did it sell them to the tenants? No! About a quarter went to tenants and three-quarters went to speculators. I wonder whether Mr Clarkson was one of those who bought some of those State houses. A great deal of money was made of course out of housing that was paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand—and we have now a waiting list of 11000 people. With those 13000 houses we would have alleviated the need of New Zealanders today. 
So I thank Opposition parties for their support for this legislation—those that are supporting it. I urge them to remember that social housing is something that all developed countries seek to provide in as best a way as they can. Just having returned this morning from the UK where I attended a housing conference at York in the north of England I was very pleased to see that the Housing New Zealand Corporation is at the cutting edge internationally of a really first-class service in providing houses to New Zealanders who have a housing need. It is a corporation that the Auditor-General’s report just released to this Parliament a week ago stated was doing a good job.
Turner Judy: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3946] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call in support of this bill. I think it is really important when we look at the bill’s title that we understand that what is happening here is information matching not information sharing which is a little bit different. What we have here is two Government departments in possession of important information often about the same people and they will be able to measure that information against each other to check whether any rort is going on. I think everybody would agree that that is important. 
What the bill does not do is to pass on information to an organisation that did not previously have it. That is an important thing. In terms of future developments regarding information when information is passed from one organisation to another we need to be extremely careful. I am very glad that we have an Office of the Privacy Commissioner that offers the kind of advice it does to make sure that we keep ourselves in check in that regard. 
United Future believes that this bill is really important for two reasons. It is very important to match this information so that people are getting the entitlements they are due. Where people may perhaps be entitled to more than they understood they were this is a way of isolating and identifying that those people may be short-changed. Of course the second reason is that this measure provides us with the opportunity to make sure that people are not double-dipping in the system which is to the detriment of the New Zealand taxpayer and to the detriment of other people who are in need of the services of Work and Income and the Housing New Zealand Corporation. We are very pleased to support the bill we think it has merit and we wish it well on its passage through the House.
Clarkson Bob: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Clarkson Bob: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3944] 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 The Housing Restructuring Act badly needs things included but National members will live with the amendments that are in this Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. I worry that if the Government gets more information it might go into overload. 
The Government has made a mess of the Housing New Zealand Corporation in the last 6½ years and I ask how it will improve its performance. The Housing New Zealand Corporation is wasting vast amounts of money at the moment and has been doing so for years. Yes this bill will help but it will not solve all the problems. I am not going to tell Labour how to fix the problems at the moment; I will with the National Party’s and Phil Heatley’s approval tell it what to do before the next election. The Labour Party members should wait with bated breath. In fact some of the members on the other side of the House today were taking swipes at me. They got their facts wrong; they must be hooked into the wrong phone or something. 
Labour currently has 11000 people on the waiting list. I hear these figures being twisted around in the House. But is it not strange that when National went out of power in 1999 there were only 14 families on the urgent waiting list in Auckland? [ 
Interruption 
] Down boys! This system needs sorting. As I said this bill and its amendments will help but I do not think the taxpayers will be happy to wait and hope that the Labour Government sorts out this major problem. It is costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars. Let us clean this mess up. If we can stop the rorts we might be able to lessen dramatically the Housing New Zealand Corporation funding. 
I look forward to making the Act much better when National is in Government. When we change it the new name of it will be “Housing for Kiwis in Need Act”.
Obituaries — Dorothy Huhana (Bubbles) Mihinui 
Obituaries — Dorothy Huhana (Bubbles) Mihinui 
[Volume:632;Page:3895] 
Tuesday 27 June 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Dorothy Huhana (Bubbles) Mihinui 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe. Tena tatou katoa. I move 
 That this House expresses its deep sadness at the recent death of Dorothy Huhana (Bubbles) Mihinui who gave 70 years of service to Maori tourism and the community in Rotorua in her role as a guide at the historic Whakarewarewa Village and express its sincere condolences to Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao and Ngaiterangi who are feeling a profound sense of loss and sorrow at this time. Kia ora t 
atou. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3941] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Locke Keith: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3941] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I take Paula Bennett’s point that we want to help people get on in life and help those who are in poorer circumstances as many in Housing New Zealand Corporation properties are. But I do not think we will do that by putting any negative attitude on people who happen to be in State-provided accommodation as against private accommodation. We need the attitude that a good State house is as good as any other house any other rental property and hopefully any private owner-occupied property. 
We have a tradition going back to the first State houses in 1938 of New Zealanders living in State houses often for long periods of time and really treating them as their own—treating them well and doing the gardens. The State house suburbs that developed in New Zealand have nurtured many of the people in this room I understand. John Key lived in a State house himself although he has more recently taken a somewhat negative attitude to State houses in opposing the building of State houses in the Hobsonville development in his electorate. That was a bit of a put-down of State houses. Unfortunately in some other instances when areas are being planned people try to impose conditions that no State housing can be developed in those areas or that no State housing tenants can live there. 
So there is a certain negative attitude afoot. I think this bill in some ways—even if only minor ways—contributes to that negative attitude because the data-matching will occur between Work and Income and the Housing New Zealand Corporation so it will apply only to people who are on benefits and happen to be in State-provided accommodation. There is no parallel matching—and of course that would be difficult—between Work and Income and those people in private rental accommodation. 
 So there is an inequality there. The Greens are concerned and issues of privacy have been raised. There are so many matching programmes now; they are expanding year by year. The Privacy Commissioner has indicated a certain concern that the more programmes there are the more abuse there can be in the system too. The people who operate these data-matching agencies—the State employees—are human beings and can misuse the agencies as other human beings do in society. This data-matching system is not necessary and as the minority report from the Green Party states the Ministry of Social Development can obtain the information required for benefits through informed consent rather than by imposing this highly computerised data-matching system. There is no demonstrated need for this legislation at this time. It is leading us down the wrong track and placing a negative attitude on those who happen to be State house tenants. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 38 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3941] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have not heard from Mr Locke and the Green Party.
Clarkson Bob: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Clarkson Bob: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3935] 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 This bill is quite a good idea but it needs more teeth. I think the information should be going both ways between the Ministry of Social Development and the Housing New Zealand Corporation. The corporation should get the information from social services as this would help to catch a lot of multi-benefits that are being paid out when they should not have to be paid out. I know of many cases where one household is receiving two or three benefits and the recipients are all using the same address—just so members know—and that could be picked up quite easily. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: It’s unacceptable. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: That is right. 
I do worry about whether the Labour Government can be trusted with more information if it were given after David Benson-Pope—the honourable if he is—sent a letter to 60000 State house tenants telling them that if National got into Government all tenants would be kicked out of their State houses. How did he get that information? I did not think we could get this information. [ 
Interruption 
] The member should just keep quiet. I am trying hard here. I have a lot to say about nothing. 
I suggest we change the name of this bill to “Custer’s Last Stand”—I mean “Carter’s Last Stand”; I had better get that right. The whole State housing sector is a mess and badly needs sorting out. There must be a better way and the National Government will find it with my help of course. We will help the disadvantaged and still make it affordable. We will not tell Mr Anderton in the House about where I will sell State houses. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: You’re in favour of everything that’s good and against everything that’s bad. Is that right? 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Just keep talking; it fills up my 5 minutes. We have 7000 houses with boarders living in them who are not paying one dollar to the Housing New Zealand Corporation to help lessen its major drain on taxpayers. We have high-income earners in State houses. What is going on? I thought those houses were a hand up not a handout. 
The Government should wake up. Labour Government members have been in the House for 6½ years I have been here for only 8 months and all I hear is damn excuses—I would have said “bloody excuses” but that would be rude—and the Government still has not got it right. Even the name of the bill needs changing as I said. If this bill made everything transparent which we hoped it would do Labour would be in deep trouble. The rip-offs and waste are shocking. The public would be shocked. To finish I say that we support the bill but it should go a lot further.
Robertson H V Ross: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3932] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.
Tolley Anne: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3932] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I seek leave for Shane Ardern to assume the Chair.
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3932] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Historic Places Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Fenton Darien: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Fenton Darien: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3922] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a short call to support the third reading of the Historic Places Amendment Bill. This Government has taken its obligations to the cultural and heritage sectors very seriously and it has backed up this commitment with a significant programme of funding and legislation. This bill is part of that programme and its purpose is to amend and strengthen the governing arrangements of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust to enhance the trust’s accountability to the Government and to clarify and adjust some of the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993. 
I note of course that National is voting against the bill which is a very disturbing trend. If members on the opposite side of the House ever had the opportunity to be in Government I think the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra would be worried and many of our flagship cultural institutions would be very worried. It would be bad news for the development of New Zealand’s arts and cultural sector. I am pleased to be part of a party that supports those very important institutions and I take pride in supporting this bill.
Bradford Sue: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Bradford Sue: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3913] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Along with most if not all parties in this House the Green Party welcomes the third readings of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill which together will mean fairer pension payments for superannuitants whose partners are in long-term residential care. 
This legislation will come into force almost immediately. This was not a controversial issue between parties. Indeed when Mrs Barbara White appeared before the Social Services Committee with her 1500-signature petition to have the law changed she found a warm response around the table the fruition of which we see here this afternoon. 
It has been manifestly unjust that for so long superannuitants and veterans pensioners have continued to receive the lower married rate of pension even though they have a spouse or partner in long-term care in a hospital or rest home. Common sense has finally prevailed and people in that situation will now be eligible for the single or single living alone rate. The sharing expenses rule has also been taken out of the legislation so that payments will be based just on the living arrangements in which people find themselves rather than on the previous arbitrary mechanism which ruled people out of receiving the living alone rate if they received any external contribution at all to their household costs from other family members for example. 
The second key feature of these two bills is that the period of time people can continue to receive New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension if they are working overseas with an aid agency has been extended from 52 weeks to 156 weeks. This is great news and simple common sense and in fact it is a very cheap way for our Government to extend its overseas aid programmes—by subsidising superannuitants who would be receiving the pension at home anyway while they do useful relief and developmental work abroad. 
 I would like to congratulate the Government and in particular Lianne Dalziel who has championed this particular cause on ensuring that the law in this area has been changed at last. Although this erstwhile anomaly in New Zealand’s pension regime does not affect a lot of people unlike other matters such as portability of overseas pensions—which is currently under scrutiny in our select committee—for those who have been in the past and may be in the future suffering reduced rates of income for no good reason this is a significant timely and positive change. 
The Green Party welcomes the passing of these two bills into law and looks forward to the day that the many other anomalies within our income support system are similarly dealt with.
Pettis Jill: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Pettis Jill: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:632;Page:3910] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 That National member is so isolated from the rest of her caucus that she does not even know that the National members on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee voted against the Nancy Wake petition. Another example is that in 1995 Peter Gresham a former National Government Minister investigated the policy that this Labour-led Government is implementing today. He had it costed. He put forward the same measures that we are enacting today. But he and the National Government of the day failed to do anything about it even after they had the evidence. There is a word for that and it starts with “h”. I am proud that this Labour-led Government is enacting this legislation which will improve the quality of life of New Zealand superannuitants and veterans.