edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7774. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12.  
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Has she received any progress reports on the recruitment of additional probation officers following a $255 million funding boost in the Budget? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes. The Government inherited a community probation system under extreme stress. Budget 2009 provided funding for 134 additional probation officers. I am pleased to report that 91 front-line probation staff have already been appointed. Funding was also provided for a further 112 probation officers who will be recruited in the first half of next year specifically to improve the quality of parole and home detention management. Public safety is the No. 1 priority when offenders are released on parole and this Government is serious about fixing the probation system and improving the safety of the public. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What other steps is the Government taking to recognise the important role carried out by Community Probation and Psychological Services which often has to deal with some of society’s most troubled people? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is not easy being a probation officer and it is a job that is often under-recognised by the wider community. At my suggestion the Department of Corrections has established a Minister’s Excellence Award to recognise outstanding achievement among new probation officer graduates. I was delighted to present the first award last week. It was also the first time that a formal ceremony has been held for graduating officers. It is important to recognise the important contribution that probation officers make to our justice system.
Tolley Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tolley Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7768. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to give an answer to a question that was asked earlier. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What should the Speaker say? I suppose a Minister can seek leave to do anything. The Minister has sought leave to provide an answer to a question that was asked earlier. The question I presume was the question asked by Catherine Delahunty. The Minister has sought leave now to answer that question. I put it to the House. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The answer is nine.
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7766. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6.  
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has the Government made on progressing the Victoria Park road of national significance? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that last week I turned the first sod on construction of the new $400 million Victoria Park project which is the first road of national significance project to get under way. This is also one of the first projects to benefit from the Government’s decision to increase State highway construction funding by $1 billion over the next 3 years. It provides further certainty in an important and vulnerable time for the construction industry. I am pleased to report that the project is expected to employ 450 people: 350 directly on-site and a further 100 in downstream jobs. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What long-term economic benefits will the Victoria Park project provide? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: This project will greatly ease congestion for the 160000-plus vehicles that use this route every day as well as allow for improved bus priority measures between the city and the bridge. It is expected that by 2016 the project will deliver time savings of up to 20 minutes during peak times. In addition the Auckland Harbour Bridge is a key freight route through the region and this project will improve access to markets economic efficiency and productivity. 
Darien Fenton 
: If fast tracking such roads of national significance is considered by this Minister to be a measure of his Government’s success how does he quantify the increased numbers of schoolchildren who could be injured or even killed because of the millions of dollars he has cut from New Zealand’s community road safety programmes? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: We have not cut millions of dollars from New Zealand’s road safety programmes. The demand management and community programmes category in the National Land Transport Fund is steady at $120 million and the New Zealand Transport Agency is determined to spend that money wisely in terms of promoting safety in the land transport sector. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What progress is expected to be made on the other roads of national significance? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Over the next 3 years there will be significant construction on five out of seven of these vital routes with all seven to be substantially advanced within 10 years. Within 3 years we expect to complete the Victoria Park project and begin construction of the Waterview Connection the Waikato Expressway and the Christchurch Southern Motorway. Design work continues on the Wellington Tauranga and Puhoi to Wellsford routes. The roads of national significance are being developed alongside key regional roads and public transport services and they will all help secure a step change in economic growth for this country.
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7763. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4.  
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent announcements has the Government made about school property? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Last week I announced $29.8 million of funding for new buildings at 27 schools across New Zealand: 17 schools will be funded for new buildings and 10 schools will receive funding to replace existing buildings. 
Louise Upston 
: Which schools in the Taupo electorate will benefit from the Government’s commitment to enhancing school property? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: In Budget 2009 the Government pledged $523 million towards school property over the next 4 years. I am pleased to advise the member that in this funding round Taupo-nui-a-Tia College in Taupo received almost $3.5 million to replace an art room a classroom and its technology block. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. How many primary schools is the Minister considering for closure? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How does that question relate to the primary question which was about school property? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The primary question asked what recent announcements the Government has made about school property and the supplementary question asked about the matter of school closures. I think it does bear a reasonable relationship to the primary question. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: In answer to the question I say to the member that a couple of primary schools have asked to be considered for closure. If the member would like to put her question down as a written question to me I can make the names of those schools available to her. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was quite specific. It asked how many— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume her seat. When a supplementary question is some distance from the primary question in the way that question was—although I ruled that it was in order—the Minister will not necessarily have the specific information. She indicated that if the member wants to put down a question specifically on that matter—[ 
Interruption 
]. I am on my feet ruling on a point of order. If the member wants to put down a specific question the Minister has indicated that she will answer it. I think it is unreasonable to expect the Minister to have that specific information at her fingertips when there is not such a close relationship to the primary question. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What does the Government’s commitment to school property mean for schools in the Rangitata electorate? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am pleased to advise the member that in this funding round Wakanui School received $455000 to increase its buildings and Hinds School will receive $900000 to replace two classrooms and its manual training block.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7757. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yesterday the Business Committee in its usual deliberations discussed the matter of the members’ day which we have today on the Order Paper. Members were slightly exercised on the issue of postponement of bills and what that does to the time available for members to have their issues discussed. I can indicate there is a strong willingness by the Business Committee to ensure that the sort of day we have today does not occur too much in the future. To facilitate this members’ day having a bit more substance the Business Committee has agreed that leave be sought for the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill to be set down for its second reading today as private and local order of the day No. 2 despite Standing Order 287. Accordingly I seek leave for that to happen. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7757. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 18 November 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yesterday the Business Committee in its usual deliberations discussed the matter of the members’ day which we have today on the Order Paper. Members were slightly exercised on the issue of postponement of bills and what that does to the time available for members to have their issues discussed. I can indicate there is a strong willingness by the Business Committee to ensure that the sort of day we have today does not occur too much in the future. To facilitate this members’ day having a bit more substance the Business Committee has agreed that leave be sought for the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill to be set down for its second reading today as private and local order of the day No. 2 despite Standing Order 287. Accordingly I seek leave for that to happen. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Vote: Climate Change (Government Vehicle Procurement) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Climate Change (Government Vehicle Procurement) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7821. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Climate Change (Government Vehicle Procurement) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Sustainable Forestry) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Sustainable Forestry) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7808. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Customs and Excise (Sustainable Forestry) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Goudie Sandra: Customs and Excise (Sustainable Forestry) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goudie Sandra: Customs and Excise (Sustainable Forestry) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7806. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to get up and speak on the Customs and Excise (Sustainable Forestry) Amendment Bill. I fully endorse all the comments made by my most learned colleague Shane Ardern. Mind you perhaps the bit about Jeanette and the Greens planting trees might have been a bit off the mark. But he was absolutely right when he said this bill is about trade. Here we have a bill that is just about timber but it is about timber that is growing in another country. We cannot isolate out the fact that whatever importers bring into this country is part of our trade between nations. We cannot isolate out an item like timber to the degree that this bill does without having some effect on our trade negotiations with other countries. For that reason I think it is very sound to take the position not to support this bill. 
The bill covers both raw and processed products so we are talking about a huge range of products. This bill talks about trade with another country and before we start to go down that track we have to talk to that country first. Once we start to do that with regard to timber another country might say it will do the same to us with regard to another product and it would start to escalate— 
Stuart Nash 
: You’ve missed the point! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: No this is not about missing the point. We are not allowed to sustainably log our own native timbers even though that could be done. This bill is to make amendments to the Customs and Excise Act—I understand that—to prohibit certain imports into New Zealand. Imports are products that are traded from another nation into ours. 
Stuart Nash 
: For 8 years? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: If they are not I fail to understand that member—this is nuts. 
I think it is absolutely marvellous that we have taken a pretty sound position. We can justify that position quite well. Shane Ardern did that so I will leave it there.
King Colin: Customs and Excise (Sustainable Forestry) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Colin: Customs and Excise (Sustainable Forestry) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7803. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 As the previous speaker for the Government Shane Ardern mentioned we will not be supporting the Customs and Excise (Sustainable Forestry) Amendment Bill for a number of reasons. To start with I draw to the House’s attention that over the last 150 years we as a nation have cleared the majority of our land. We have turned it into what is today primarily pastoral land which contributes massively to our country’s economy. It would also be worthwhile to mention that in about the year 2000 sustainable indigenous logging was stopped on the West Coast. As a consequence of that action we saw a perverse effect happen. We had to weather a flood of unsustainable forestry from other countries. There is no doubt that the Green member Catherine Delahunty has introduced this bill with a view to controlling that effect. So from that point of view this bill does come to the House with a noble sentiment but we do not believe that it is workable. 
In the present context this legislation would create immeasurable problems for those people who presently import forestry products. If it was to become law we would find that people would be subject to prosecution. On that basis the bill is lacking a transitional provision and that would need to be a serious part of any consideration. The main point that I make is that from the Government’s point of view it would be impossible presently to enforce this legislation if it became an Act because of the way that timber is traded as a commodity. It effectively goes from one country to another in a manufactured state. When we consider that this bill covers all wood products I do not find that it is possible to support this bill because we would not be able to enforce it.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7797. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. I am quite humbled and honoured to stand in this House to support my colleague Brendon Burns the MP for Christchurch Central who is sponsoring the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill and I am also pleased to speak to the bill’s second reading. The group that is critically important to this bill is the Methodist Church of New Zealand Te Haahi Weteriana o Aotearoa. I thank the Methodist Church which has been in place since the early 1820s. Just about every New Zealander is affected by church or the history of missionaries including those from the Methodist Church. 
This bill is quite visionary because it follows a precedent that has already been set with Catholics Anglicans and Presbyterians. The main aim of this bill is that where the original objects or purposes are now impossible or impractical or where it is inexpedient to carry them out we can remove that legal technicality so that we can carry on with the business in terms of supporting those most in need in our country and in our society. 
I also acknowledge the Methodist Church in terms of its commitment to Maori and also to Pacific people. All over the region the Methodist Church has contributed enormously to those countries and to those people when they are in need. 
We are very pleased with the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I thank its members so much for doing the great work they have done on this bill particularly to do with the amendments that my colleague Brendon Burns has alluded to. 
We really look forward to seeing the passage of this bill through the House. It will be a welcomed bill particularly by all the Methodists who comprise the fifth largest Christian church in New Zealand. I also acknowledge the wonderful contribution that they make to those in need. Thank you.
Foss Craig: Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Foss Craig: Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7796. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I take a very brief call on the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. Picking up on the sentiment and words of the previous speaker Brendon Burns I say National will continue to support the bill. As members—particularly those on the Finance and Expenditure Committee—are aware we are very supportive of the intent of the bill on its way through the House. 
Members will note that the Finance and Expenditure Committee recommended a few changes to the bill under advice from the officials particularly those from the Ministry of Justice whom I acknowledge and thank. The previous speaker alluded to some of those changes regarding the definition of property—trust property at least—and we had an inquiry and discussion with the Attorney-General about some matters which members will know are picked up on in the commentary on the bill. We will obviously touch on that during the Committee stage. 
I quickly note a couple of points. This bill is quite different from a normal bill in that the select committee received it from the House on 6 May 2009 and the way in which we ask for submissions on a bill like this is that we ask for submissions from particularly affected parties: those that are listed as interested parties in the petition from the promoters of the bill. I congratulate the member on picking this bill up; I think Tim Barnett originally ran this bill. Is that correct? Yes it is. [ 
Interruption 
] OK I give my apologies there if that is incorrect. But anyway I congratulate the member on getting the bill through as far as this and I also congratulate the members of the committee who have helped to steer it through. They have raised some interesting points and have effected some amendments to better the bill. One point I would flag is that it was very interesting to note the support that the member opposite Brendon Burns had from his colleagues when the bill was finally deliberated on in our committee. 
On that note I say I look forward to this bill progressing through the House quite rapidly. I look forward hopefully to achieving the same date that the previous member alluded to. Thank you.
Vote: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7795. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a third time.
Calder Cam: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Calder Cam: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7794. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill. It is a modest bill—small perhaps but perfectly formed. 
It has been known for me on occasions when speaking in the House to take the opportunity to lambaste the late unlamented Labour administration for year after year of supervised neglect perhaps suggesting that Labour members were legislative sybarites embracing a default position of lassitude languor and inaction. It is not my intention to do so today. 
This bill in fact reflects cooperation across the House with a sterling effort from the Hon Steve Maharey and an able picking-up of the ball by Iain Lees-Galloway. I acknowledge the hard work the latter has done to bring the bill to its final stage in the House. I acknowledge also the inspired chairmanship of the Local Government and Environment Committee by my colleague Chris Auchinvole. 
One of the other things I should say about the honourable member Mr Iain Lees-Galloway is that he is a very able member of the parliamentary rugby team. Unfortunately he was unable to make the recent trip to Rarotonga although I am sure he would have made an able contribution. But I am hopeful that in the years ahead he may perhaps arrange a rugby game on this particular ground because as we know everything will remain the same; it is just a matter of transferring ownership. I commend the bill to the House.
Wagner Nicky: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7792. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise with pleasure to support the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill. It is right and proper that legislation should support the day-to-day reality that the Palmerston North City Council already owns the relevant land and most other assets and that the council staff have effectively taken over the day-to-day management of the showgrounds for the last 2 years. 
When the Local Government and Environment Committee received the bill it seemed a very straightforward bill a mere ratification of decisions made by the Palmerston North community. Simply put the Manawatu and West Coast Agricultural and Pastoral Association had disposed of its property to the Palmerston North City Council because it did not need it any longer for the show. There had already been a transfer of ownership back in 1974 through the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act. At that time the agricultural and pastoral association unable to finance desired improvements and additions to the showground facilities did a deal with the city council: the council could develop the land for recreation as long as it could be used for a specific number of days a year by the agricultural and pastoral association. 
Although we have evidence that the showgrounds property was first acquired on 1 June 1886 and was vested in the Manawatu and West Coast Agricultural and Pastoral Society Inc. by the Governor of the colony of New Zealand William F Drummond Jervois at Government House Wellington under the Public Reserves Act 1881 for the site of an agricultural and pastoral showground that is not the end of the story. Ngati Kauwhata challenged the legitimacy of the ownership claiming it to be part of their lands and Treaty claims. 
The select committee heard a submission from Ngati Kauwhata and sought further details from the original Government purchase. We discovered that in 1864 when the original block was purchased from the Rangitane people there was a local dispute over the ownership. So the select committee sought further information finally concluding that despite Ngati Kauwhata’s claim—even if it was successful for the Waitangi Tribunal—the Waitangi Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to recommend the return of the showgrounds. Therefore the select committee decided that this bill affects only the management and control of the land and its enactment will not result in prejudice to any Treaty claimants. We therefore all support the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill.
Nash Stuart: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Nash Stuart: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7792. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a very short call on the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill. I stand in support of the bill for a number of reasons but first and foremost because it is a common-sense bill introduced by my colleague and friend Iain Lees-Galloway who has proven himself to be a very able and capable replacement for the Hon Steve Maharey. In fact it is good to see that Mr Lees-Galloway is in the process of once again turning Palmerston North into a Labour Party fortress. 
I will make one comment however on Mr Tremain’s general debate speech. He talked about the wonderful things that he had done for the provinces. Well Mr Tremain and the House will be disgusted to know that in fact unemployment in Hawke’s Bay is at the highest rate of any region in this country. In 2 years’ time Mr Tremain and the National Government will be called to account for that. 
I come back to the bill. Last time Mr Lees-Galloway spoke on this bill in its second reading he spoke about the Manawatu rugby team. He said that he was about to head across to my home town of Napier to watch the Manawatu Turbos play the Hawke’s Bay Magpies. This bill has gone very well for Mr Lees-Galloway. However something that must have caused him some difficulty is the fact that a couple of months ago he had to walk down the main street of Palmerston North—and no doubt around the showgrounds—wearing a Hawke’s Bay Magpies rugby jersey as a result of losing a most challenging bet when the Hawke’s Bay Magpies thrashed the Manawatu Turbos. Mr Assistant Speaker Barker as a former rugby player and a proud supporter of the Hawke’s Bay Magpies will appreciate the discomfort of losing such a bet. 
That aside and coming back to the point at hand this bill was first introduced into the House by the then member for Palmerston North Steve Maharey basically because the A and P show that had previously been held at the showgrounds had moved to Feilding. It is a pity that Mr Lees-Galloway is not the local member there as he would be a much more appropriate MP than the current offering. There is no doubt about that. In Feilding as those members who know the place as I do will know—my partner grew up there; lucky thing she has now seen the light and calls Hawke’s Bay home—there is a very large and suitable area called Manfeild Park where large shows can now be held. 
Feilding has won the award for the most well-kept and prettiest town in New Zealand 13 times. The reason for that of course is that Napier has not entered the contest because we in the Bay believe it is only fair to share these awards around. Most else that needs to be said on this bill has already been said a number of times. On that note I commend this bill to the House.
Auchinvole Chris: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7791. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 My compliments to Iain Lees-Galloway on a remarkably long speech on a very very short subject. It is interesting the way football keeps creeping into the bill. 
Hon Member 
: Rugby! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Rugby football yes—one has to be particularly careful nowadays. I notice that National’s senior whip Mr Tremain spoke on rugby during the first reading so there is something that brings it about. 
It is with pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill. The bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee and we returned it to the House with no amendments at all. However I will say that in returning the bill with no amendments it certainly does not mean that we did not give the matter our serious attention. It was not treated lightly at all; we were conscious of the local content of this sort of legislation so it was quite the reverse. The bill does three things: firstly it provides for the transfer of the management and control of the land that comprises the Palmerston North Showgrounds from the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control to the Palmerston North City Council; secondly it allows for the dissolution of the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control; and thirdly it repeals the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act 1974. 
There was only one particular issue the committee concentrated on and that was the question raised in the first reading by Te Ururoa Flavell relating to Ngati Kauwhata’s Treaty claims in the Palmerston North area. We checked through all the appropriate sources of legal information and we found that essentially the land as it is at the moment would be inaccessible to a claim. With the change that is proposed in this bill that status will not change so there was no issue there. 
Looking back over the first and second readings I note that the bill was introduced by the Hon Steve Maharey. As I mentioned the senior whip for National has spoken on it mentioning rugby as well as has the member for Rangitikei the Hon Simon Power. The bill is currently in the control of Iain Lees-Galloway the member for Palmerston North who is apparently looking forward to seeing what Palmerston North City Council staff will say to him when he goes back there because up until now they have been able to ask him how the bill is going. Well to assist it going rapidly I will call it a day at that.
Garrett David: Inquiries Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Garrett David: Inquiries Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 July 2009. Volume:656;Page:5211. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party will also be supporting the nuts-and-bolts non-controversial Inquiries Bill arising as it does from a Law Commission report entitled  
A New Inquiries Act 
. I will not repeat what others have said; that is a waste of time. The members on the Labour benches especially Mr Hipkins and Ms Fenton have come up with a number of mythical or theoretical inquiries we could have but we have actually had a very good example of a non-inquiry that illustrates very neatly the need for a review of this area of the law. That non-inquiry is the Taito Phillip Field inquiry conducted by Noel Ingram QC at the behest of the previous Prime Minister Ms Clark. It was a ministerial inquiry— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I remind the member that that matter is currently before the court and what the member says must be taken very very seriously with that in mind. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker; I am aware of that. The Taito Phillip Field inquiry highlights the many faults of a ministerial inquiry as opposed to a more formal inquiry. Ministerial inquiries have narrow terms of reference and most crucially no power to compel testimony. What can result in inquiries of that kind is something stage-managed for political purpose whereby the motions are gone through to obtain a result. 
The bill before us allows for public and Government inquiries. Government inquiries are not ministerial inquiries. Government inquiries will be inquiries in which witnesses can be compelled and can be offered immunity and in contrast with non-statutory ministerial inquiries Government inquiries will be inquiries with real meat. 
The changes the Law Commission has recommended are largely contained in the bill. I am a little bit surprised by Mr Hipkins in the language of his generation dissing his own party’s bill. It is as if anything that has any sense is supposed to be abandoned the day there is an election. The other implication in his speech was that the only thing that can create jobs and solve economic problems is more laws. We saw that approach in the 1970s with job creation laws of varying kinds which led to railways being staffed by 90000 people when 6000 would have done at the expense of the rest of us. It is not just laws that create jobs or solve problems. 
It is heartening for me anyway to see this bill which is not anything magic or high profile and probably will not be reported in the newspapers tomorrow. It is a sensible measure but it is overdue as my colleague Keith Locke has just said by 100 years. It is sensible. Yes it was started by the other side but so what. I am quite happy to support the bill on behalf of the ACT Party.
Peachey Allan: Inquiries Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peachey Allan: Inquiries Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 July 2009. Volume:656;Page:5221. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I support the Inquiries Bill and I commend it to the House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 28 July 2009. Volume:656;Page:5152. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question has been the subject of a lot of discussion this morning and I submit that it presumes or implies that the Minister of Education should have taken some action based on a speech given by the Secretary to the Treasury. That implication is perfectly unreasonable. It would lead to the House’s dealing with questions every day about matters speeches comments or otherwise for which Ministers have no direct responsibility. It was insisted that this question go to the Minister of Education. I accept that the question has made it through the system but I make the point that the Government would like the Standing Orders to be applied as they have been for the last 9 years when the Government has been asked questions. I freely accept that the question will now be answered.
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 28 July 2009. Volume:656;Page:5155. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What are the economic benefits of Treaty settlements? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Treaty settlements can provide a regional economic stimulus that boosts investment creates jobs and lays the foundations for future economic success. Ngai Tahu for example have built up their 1998 settlement of $170 million into an asset portfolio of tourism property fisheries and investment that is today worth around $609 million with equity of almost $500 million. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What recent milestones have been reached in Treaty settlements that will see significant economic benefit flowing into New Zealand’s regional economies? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: On Saturday 4 July the Crown marked the transfer of title to 90 percent of the Kaingaroa Forest to eight iwi. This transfer included almost $450 million in land and Crown forest rentals and that represents a significant boost to the regional economy. The settlement provides certainty for the future of forestry in the central North Island and will hopefully increase productivity as iwi progress and diversify into value-added manufacturing activities. Other economic opportunities could also open up as iwi develop other resources in the region such as sustainable geothermal energy.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 28 July 2009. Volume:656;Page:5153. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for bringing this issue up because it was the subject of enormous discussion through the morning. The discussion was mainly around whether the Secretary to the Treasury had called for the privatisation or contracting out of core State services as was the view of the Opposition but not of the Government. There was a lot of negotiation around this question and my submission is that you properly accepted the question because it first of all went to the role of the Minister of Education as to what is going to be privatised and what is not. The reference to the Secretary to the Treasury was really just a timing one; we were not asking what the Minister had done in the entire time she has been a Minister but just following Mr Whitehead’s call for privatisation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s last point was totally outside the Standing Orders because he made an assertion about what the Secretary to the Treasury may or may not have said. I happen to have his speech right here. I am aware of the discussion that took place this morning. I am aware of the very careful wording of this question: it does not make any allusion to a call for privatisation by the Secretary to the Treasury; it refers to reports of such. 
The Minister in my view—and I do not want to pre-empt her answer—could give a range of answers. In response to the point of order made by the Hon Rodney Hide there would be nothing wrong with the Minister saying she has not even considered the Secretary’s speech because she does not have to. So there are a range of possibilities in answering it and that is why I considered that overall the question came within the Standing Orders. It was my judgment that it falls within the Standing Orders.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 28 July 2009. Volume:656;Page:5152. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Just picking up on a related point for you to consider in respect of this question I struggle to see what possible ministerial responsibility there can be for a speech made by the Secretary to the Treasury. It is his speech; it is not a speech made by the Minister or the Government. It is a speech made by the Secretary to the Treasury; I could understand that the question may be directed to the Minister of Finance. But the question asks why the Minister of Education does not exclude something following that speech. Well a lot of speeches are given by different people up and down the country and it is a bit odd that a Minister would be responsible for excluding something because of that speech. There is no ministerial responsibility in that question.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
[Sitting date: 28 July 2009. Volume:656;Page:5141. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank members for the genuine way they have raised this issue but I actually cannot accept the point the member has raised. The Speaker has a number of roles at law and some of them are not directly associated with the Speaker’s role in presiding over Parliament. The Speaker has a number of lawful roles in relation to the Parliamentary Corporation and all sorts of things to do with the property on the parliamentary precinct which are not related to the Speaker’s role in the House. That is why the Speaker has a wider range of roles than just being a presiding officer in the House and points of order can relate only to the role of the Speaker as a presiding officer in the House and matters to do with the parliamentary process. There the matter will be left.
Cunliffe David: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
[Sitting date: 28 July 2009. Volume:656;Page:5141. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a copy of your letter of 23 July regarding the use of a select committee room and by way of explanation if I could just briefly mention that in it you— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a letter from me on the use of the select committee rooms. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Smith Lockwood: Obituaries — Hon Herbert Elmer Lorraine Pickering QSO 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Obituaries — Hon Herbert Elmer Lorraine Pickering QSO 
[Sitting date: 28 July 2009. Volume:656;Page:5139. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 25 July 2009 of the Hon Herbert Elmer Lorraine Pickering QSO who represented the electorate of Hurunui from 1961 to 1963 and Rangiora from 1963 to 1972. He was Associate Minister of Finance in 1970 and 1971 and Minister of Education in 1972. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
[Sitting date: 28 July 2009. Volume:656;Page:5140. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must ask the member to stop. I do not disagree with the arguments members are putting forward about the reasonable use of select committee rooms. The point I am trying to make is that they are not matters I as Speaker can address under the points of order process; they are not matters of the order of this House. There must be no further raising of those matters by way of a point of order. Members are certainly at liberty to raise with me the issue of whether select committee rooms should be used for a multiparty purpose. That is perfectly reasonable. If members wish to question my decision on that issue there is no problem with that. I have no problem with members questioning my decision and asking me to reconsider but it cannot be done by way of a point of order because it has nothing to do with the order of this House. No one has been able to establish that what they are seeking to have me address today has something to do with the order of this House so I cannot hear any further points of order on that issue.
Cunliffe David: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
[Sitting date: 28 July 2009. Volume:656;Page:5139. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek to raise a substantive issue with you relating to the order of the House and I ask that rather than ruling immediately you take the opportunity to reflect on the points that I make and provide the House with a considered ruling. 
Last Friday I received a letter from you advising that you had denied a request from three parties represented in this House to use a room in the parliamentary complex to hear submissions from members of the public on the multiparty inquiry into banking issues. There have been other recent examples of the same issue arising. Although I do not seek to relitigate your ruling Mr Speaker I believe that members of this House need some clear guidance on the factors you will take into account in reaching these decisions. 
Earlier this year you also denied requests to provide facilities for multiparty events to engage with the public on international aid policy and on youth unemployment. In each case you suggested that one party’s caucus room might be a more appropriate venue. I submit that in each case it would be highly inappropriate to use a particular party’s caucus room as this would give the impression that rather than being a genuine multiparty process these were the internal party processes of one particular party. In this specific example Mr Speaker we are seeking to provide a venue for members of the public banks and stakeholders to appear on ground that is as neutral as possible and for them to make their cases as fairly as possible. 
Engaging with the public on issues of public importance is a core function of members of Parliament and is indeed vital to the health of our democracy. It is a fact that the Government by weight of numbers controls all select committees. We submit that it would not serve our democracy if other venues around the people’s House were prohibited from being used for the proper pursuit of parliamentary business especially where it is on a multiparty basis and in this case where all parties have been invited to participate. 
Mr Speaker I note that a range of functions have been hosted in the complex this year that seem to be of a more social or personal nature. In the past I have attended meetings in select committee rooms for groups as diverse as for example the Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament various parliamentary friendship groups lobby groups hosting briefing sessions and so forth. If the argument holds for select committee rooms surely it is even more true for areas of common parliamentary space such as the Legislative Council Chamber.