edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4277] 
7.  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Does he believe that high-value high-tech products developed from a huge stable commodity base provide more certainty for increased exports than new unproven enterprises? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Economic Development 
: Yes to a certain extent. But we do need a balanced portfolio of products and that means added-value products from our existing product base and new products that either use new technology or exploit emerging new market opportunities. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Has the Minister put any proposal to Cabinet seeking more funding for the Waikato Innovation Park; if not will he consider doing so in the near future to aid the expansion of innovation within the pastoral sector which remains the backbone of our economy and export industry? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: At the moment we have received no formal request for additional funding for the Waikato Innovation Park. Of course an initial $2 million was funded. The park has been so successful that it is now looking for further space and initial discussions are under way with the park around the financing of that.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4269] 
1. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing to put quality early childhood education within the reach of all New Zealand families? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Today I am announcing $9 million in new grants to assist 42 early childhood education providers to plan for and build new early childhood centres. The funding which goes to low socio-economic rural and isolated communities will provide for nearly 500 new places across New Zealand’s growing network of early childhood centres. 
Moana Mackey 
: What else is the Government doing to lift the quality of early childhood teaching and lower the cost to all parents? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Heaps but I will just limit myself to the following. Through this year’s Budget the Government will invest an additional $162 million in early childhood education. That includes $128 million to implement Labour’s policy of 20 hours a week of free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds $30 million to help centres to employ more qualified teachers an extra $4 million to ensure playcentres remain financially sustainable and overall ensuring that people carry on remembering how much Labour is doing for early childhood and how little National did. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Does the Minister believe that the downgrading of the Parents as First Teachers programme in the Hawke’s Bay is something that he is doing to put quality early childhood education within the reach of all New Zealanders? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It has not been downgraded. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister explain why a parent who works 5 hours per day for 4 days will have 20 hours of early childhood provision subsidised by the Government whereas someone who works two 8-hour days will have only three-quarters of his or her childcare subsidised? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member is referring to the fact that we have agreed with the early childhood sector that we will introduce the free 20 hours at 6 hours per day. The reason it is being introduced in that way is that the current way of funding the early childhood education sector is for 6 hours per day. The sector agrees with us that we should introduce this new policy with current arrangements monitor it and change it when necessary.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:632;Page:4269] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the completion of the Appropriation (2006/07) Estimates Bill and the remaining stages of the Protected Objects Amendment Bill and the Coroners Bill. If possible priority will also be given to the first readings of the Ngati Mutanga Claims Settlement Bill the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. 
Wednesday is a members’ day and it has already been agreed between the parties that the Hon Jim Sutton’s valedictory speech will occur at 5.30 p.m. on that day.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:632;Page:4269] 
Thursday 20 July 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 completion of the Appropriation (2006/07) Estimates Bill and the remaining stages of the Protected Objects Amendment Bill and the Coroners Bill. If possible priority will also be given to the first readings of the Ngati Mutanga Claims Settlement Bill the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. 
Wednesday is a members’ day and it has already been agreed between the parties that the Hon Jim Sutton’s valedictory speech will occur at 5.30 p.m. on that day.
Harawira Hone: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Harawira Hone: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4386] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora e te Heamana kia ora tatou te Komiti. Ehara i te mea ki a matou o te Pati Maori nga korero katoa. Kei te Kawanatanga te mana mo nga taonga tuturu nei. I hangaia te Kawanatanga i tetahi atu ropu Maori ara ko te Kaunihera Maori o Aotearoa. He aha te take e kore ratou e whakaae kia tuku tenei mana ki te kaunihera? 
He take ano e tautoko ana a au i te korero a Tau Henare. E rereke ana te taonga tuturu ki nga taonga a tauiwi. Nga taonga tuturu nga taonga i tuku iho mai i te ao Maori. Ko nga taonga a tauiwi na ratou ano te mana. E kohikohi i nga taonga rere ke nei ki roto i te pouaka kotahi. Tuku atu nga taonga a tauiwi ki nga koti a tauiwi tuku atu nga taonga tuturu ki te Koti Whenua Maori. 
Hei korero whakatika e he ana te korero a Tau Henare mo te hokinga mai o nga koiwi. E rereke atu tera kaupapa ki nga tikanga o tenei pire. E tautoko ana matou hoki i te kaupapa ma te Koti Whenua Maori te mana tirohanga ki te nga taonga tuturu nei me te tautoko ano hoki i te inoi a Georgina te Heuheu kia tuku putea atu ki te Koti Whenua Maori hei kawe tika 
i taua mahi. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the Committee.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Chairman and to us in Committee. It is not as if we in the Maori Party have a monopoly on what is to be said. The Government has jurisdiction over these native treasures. The Government created another Maori organisation: namely the Maori Council of New Zealand. What is the reason for its not agreeing to this mandate going to the council? 
Regarding another matter I support what Tau Henare said. Native treasures are different from foreign ones. Native treasures are those handed down from the Maori world. Foreign treasures have their own integrity and we must not put these separate treasures in the one compartment. Foreign treasures should go to foreign courts and native treasures to the Maori Land Court. 
I want to correct what Tau Henare said about the returning of skeletal remains. That matter is quite different from what is in this bill. We also support the policy that the Maori Land Court should have jurisdiction over these native treasures and as well we endorse Georgina te Heuheu’s plea that the Maori Land Court should be funded to enable it to carry out its functions properly. Greetings to us all 
.] 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 12 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 48 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 12 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.
Barnett Tim: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4381] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Henare Tau: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4381] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to raise briefly with the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard something about the return of moko mokai. The reason why they were brought home was to return them to the rightful people so they could be back with their whanau. To this day I think they still languish in Te Papa and there is no mention of a regime whereby they are brought home and the rightful owners found. So I thought I would take a moment just to ask the Minister whether in future there would be some sort of working party that would try to figure out what we should do with the repatriated remains. 
I have thought of one more issue and that is to do with our soldiers buried overseas. Not a day goes by without there being a request from whanau from somewhere throughout the country asking whether they can bring home uncle so and so who may be buried in a Commonwealth grave overseas. I am not sure about this Government but it has always been an issue— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: They are not covered by this bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: They might not be covered by this bill but moko mokai are and it follows that there must be some sort of relationship. I am not asking for the return of our soldiers; I am just asking the Minister to be aware that the issue is out there. There are whanau out there who want to repatriate the remains of our soldiers. So hoi ano. Thank you very much Mr Chairman.
Yates Dianne: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4381] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Jones Shane: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Jones Shane: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4379] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou. Ta te mea ko te wa tenei mo te reo Maori e tika ana kia whakatairangatia te reo Maori maku e korero i te reo Maori ki a tatou e whiriwhiri ana i tenei pire. Erangi rawa ko nga wahanga e pa ana ki nga mana tunga e kia nei ko nga taonga tuku iho. 
I te tuatahi tautoko ana au i nga whakapae me nga awangawanga erangi rawa ko nga maharahara a taku whanaunga a Tau Henare ki te kitea he taonga me pehea ranei te hapu te iwi ranei no ratou tera taonga e hari i ta ratou take kia whakapumautia ai kei a wai ranei te mana mo tera taonga e hari ana au ka kite au i roto i te pire nei kua riro ma te Koti Whenua Maori e whakatau a ka ahei tatou te iwi Maori ki te haere atu ki te aroaro o te Koti Whenua Maori ta te mea taunga ana tatou ki nga whakahaerenga me nga ritenga o tera koti. 
Te take e toe ana hei korerotanga maku ki te kitea he taonga i tawahi i hea ke ranei kei raro i te ture nei e ki ana kei te Karauna ano te mana mo nga taonga penei. Pena e tika ana tera korero me tino awhi te Karauna i nga matapono o te Tiriti kia noho marama ai te iwi te hapu enei taonga hakoa kei raro i te taitara o te Karauna mo te wa poto ko te mauri o nga taonga ra kei roto i te iwi i te hapu ranei no ratou wera taonga i te tuatahi. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the Committee 
. 
] 
[ 
Greetings to us. Because this is a time for the Maori language it is appropriate that it be promoted and I will address us in Maori as we consider this bill relating to precious objects called taonga tuku iho. 
In the first instance I support the accusations and concerns especially those of my relation Tau Henare about what a subtribe or an iwi should do if a taonga that belongs to them is found—whom they should go to to have it certified that that taonga is really theirs. It was pleasing for me to see in this bill that the Maori Land Court will rule and we are able to go before it because we are familiar with that court’s proceedings and customs. 
The remaining matter for me to talk about is that if a taonga is found overseas or wherever this legislation states that the Crown has jurisdiction over taonga under those circumstances. If that statement is correct then the Crown must embrace the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi so that iwi and hapu have a clear understanding that even though the title is under the Crown for a brief period the life force of those taonga remains with the iwi and hapu that owned the taonga in the first place. Greetings to us all. 
]
Henare Tau: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4378] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairman. I want to clear up a few things that may not have been clear from the last time I spoke. I used the colloquialism “shrunken heads”. That is how people used to refer to them. I am not referring to the Labour members I am referring to what used to be called the trade in shrunken heads. I am quite chuffed that the Protected Objects Amendment Bill is before the House because back around 1998 I travelled overseas to retrieve moko mokai—our ancestors so to speak—and brought them back here. As a lot of people have said in the House if we had had something like this legislation 100 years ago it would have been wonderful. 
I also want to raise two other issues. One issue is those taonga that are in museums at the moment that were taken from urupa in the last 100 years. I refer to one specifically where there is some dispute which is the Fraser collection. Fraser was a very interesting person up in the Whangarei area and just so happened to “find” all of these artefacts. Now they are called the Fraser collection and they are in the Auckland Museum and I want to ask the Minister how this bill protects those artefacts. 
I am absolutely overawed by the fact that now we have legislation that states that people cannot go around willy-nilly finding things and sticking them in their back pockets and then hocking them off overseas and so on. That is good. I remember that when we were talking last week the issue of Nazi memorabilia came up from Ron Mark. I concur with him that a lot of our soldiers came back from the Second World War with the spoils of war. Some of those spoils of war were actually what we would term now “Nazi memorabilia”; is that catered for in this bill? Also there are those spoils of war from the Korean War. I had an uncle in the Korean War and I have seen some of his stuff that he brought back. I want to know whether the bill takes care of that. 
But all in all I think this bill is a wonderful start. Maybe at a later date when we have had time to digest and when this bill has gone through its process we can come back and revisit some of the clauses and some of the issues that have been raised—not straightaway but in the very near future. So I wonder whether the Minister could give us a lead on those two issues that I have raised.
Vote: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4377] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Health Committee.referred to Health Committee
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4358] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Report adopted.
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4358] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4357] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the votes the preamble clauses 1 to 14 and schedules 1 to 7 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Votes preamble clauses 1 to 14 and schedules 1 to 7 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4357] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The time allocated to the consideration of the estimates referred to in the Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill has expired. I shall now put as one question the remaining votes and provisions of the bill. 
The question was put that Vote Lands Vote Customs Vote Youth Development Vote Statistics Vote Consumer Affairs Vote National Archives Vote National Library Vote Community and Voluntary Sector Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade Vote Official Development Assistance Vote Racing Vote Revenue the preamble clauses 1 to 14 and schedules 1 to 7 be agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4357] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Energy be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Vote Energy agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4354] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Climate Change and Energy Efficiency be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Vote Climate Change and Energy Efficiency agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4352] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Corrections be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Vote Corrections agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4347] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Social Development be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Vote Social Development agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4341] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have been advised that Hone Harawira is going to speak in Maori. Just so everybody is aware the member is going to give his whole speech in Maori and then the interpreter will give the interpretation of the whole speech.
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4337] 
12.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Has she received any reports that the minimum wage legislation may not have been fully complied with in the activities covered by the Ingram report? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
on behalf of the 
 Minister of Labour 
: No. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Maybe the Minister should do some reading. Does the Department of Labour plan to follow the suggestion of Dr Ingram it being the “appropriately authorised authority” to inquire whether the minimum wage regulations were breached given that the Ingram report finds that Mr Field substantially underpaid Thai immigrants who were working to upgrade his numerous premises? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that nothing in the Ingram report gives any concrete reason to believe that there are any issues around the minimum wage not being provided. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Can the Minister explain why the Department of Labour would not investigate breaches of New Zealand’s minimum wage laws in respect of work done at 51 Church Street given Dr Ingram’s statement that he was “concerned by the unsatisfactory nature of the explanations provided” by Mr Field and that Mr Field gave three different stories each of the three times he was questioned by Dr Ingram? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Minister is not responsible for the conduct of the inquiry. I am further advised that the department does not have jurisdiction to investigate the relationship between a principal and a contractor. As an example New Zealanders engaging people to complete work on their houses such as painters do not normally enter into a direct employment relationship with the people providing the service. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Will the Minister ensure that the Department of Labour fully investigates breaches of employment law given Dr Ingram’s finding that Mr Field’s story that his tenant would paint the interior of the house merely because she was a friend as opposed to seeking immigration help from Mr Field was a “highly unlikely if not improbable proposition.”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: If any member has any evidence of an employment relationship in relation to this case or breaches of the minimum wage I would encourage them to provide this information to the department. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Does it now seem that the Minister does not even believe that breaches of the New Zealand law on minimum wages should be investigated if it is the case that they involve a Labour member of Parliament? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That suggestion is unworthy. I am advised that if the member has any information to put before the department or the Minister of Labour it will be fully investigated. That member might be better off spending his time on marshalling evidence rather than trying to drive down the minimum wage with a spurious bill that gives employers the right to fire within 90 days.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4331] 
7.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received on support for the Government’s work to lower the cost of doctors’ visits and prescription drugs for all New Zealanders? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have received many reports stating that lower health costs have been warmly welcomed by New Zealand families. The National Party is however committed to raising costs back to where they were—that is a policy to increase doctors’ fees by $27 and the cost of each prescription to increase by $12. That is current National Party policy—unless of course National is going to change its leader and change its policy. 
Maryan Street 
: What work is under way to accelerate the implementation of the Government’s Primary Health Care Strategy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: On Friday I released a 5-year plan for primary health focusing on the continued extension of affordable doctors’ visits and on population health. By contrast at last weekend’s National Party conference Tony Ryall was the only member of the National front bench not allowed to give a policy speech. Why might that be? 
Nathan Guy 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on how devastated the people are in Levin at today’s announcement that the Village Doctors practice is closing leaving an extra 1500 people in Horowhenua without a general practitioner—like Gisborne Blenheim Kapiti Timaru—and why after 7 years of a Labour Government are doctors all over New Zealand in short supply stressed out and overworked? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member might like to refer to a press statement made by the primary health organisation itself that patients will be enrolled in a brand-new practice in Shannon as well as existing practices in Foxton and Levin. Things move quickly in health. He should try to keep up.
Vote: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4471] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill be now read a first time 
. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.referred to Justice and Electoral Committee
Simich Clem: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
Simich Clem: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4457] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The first two speakers had 10 minutes as they have on all members’ bills. All other speakers have 5 minutes.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4425] 
12.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing to ensure information and communications technology is part of the learning environment in schools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Good news! Yesterday I launched the Government’s $65 million-a-year e-learning action plan. This is aimed at helping schools to make use of technology to tailor their teaching to the learning needs of students. To give just one example yesterday we launched the “tablet” classroom at Brooklyn School. This involves students working on handheld computers or tablets as they are called and allows them to be directly involved in planning their learning. The e-learning plan also involves upgrading schools’ information and communications technology networks providing laptops for teachers and access to the latest software. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other support is the Government providing for innovation in schools through the use of information and communications technology? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Since 2000 the Labour-led Government has invested more than $300 million in information and communications technology in schools. As a result all children now have access to information and communications technology and the learning opportunities it offers. New investments funded in this year’s Budget include $812000 to expand videoconferencing $4.1 million to provide high-quality digital content for teachers and students and $700000 to help remote schools with satellite broadband. I did Google and surf the net in search of the National Party’s policy on information and communications technology but just as was the case with regard to National’s speech from Bill English on mainstreaming I was unable to find it.
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4418] 
6.  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What reports has he received on the different versions and interpretations contained in documents publications and other information campaigns that have attempted to define the “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” and can he advise the House what the Government’s definition of the “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” is?  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: Many. In 1989 the Government released five principles by which it would act when dealing with issues that arise from the Treaty of Waitangi and I will be quite happy to table that particular document again because no Government since that point has actually rejected or amended it. In relation to references in legislation those of course are matters for the courts to interpret but to give greater clarity this Government has adopted the practice of giving a greater degree of definition of specificity to those references in order that such interpretation does not occur simply in the abstract. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is he aware that when asked what the Government’s definition of the principles was in 2002 the Prime Minister stated: “I am not aware of an official Government statement on the principles of the treaty.”; and what has changed between then and now that has enabled him to provide a definitive answer on behalf of the Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is flattering to note that I gave a definitive answer in relation to that principal question. In fact I have references to correspondence issued by the Prime Minister where she makes reference to that 1989 statement. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is he aware that in 2002 when asked to define the principles the Prime Minister stated that the principles had “preoccupied the courts the legal profession Maoridom and the Government for many years. This process is clearly an ongoing matter.” but declined to define them and does he not realise that this lack of definition has come at a huge cost to this country both fiscally and socially? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That I think was in the context of the interpretation of legislation. That still remains a matter for the courts and one reason it is left in that form is that the interpretation is not necessarily fixed through all time in all circumstances. Because the nature of society changes the nature of the relevant framework changes. That is also a reason why this Government has adopted the process of giving greater clarity to any such references so that it is not a purely abstract consideration. I seek leave to table the 1989 document. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4415] 
4.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: What are the potential revenue implications of the business tax review? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 If all the measures that the Inland Revenue Department and Treasury have been able to cost were advanced the costs could be up to $1.7 billion per annum of which $540 million would be the cost of the company tax rate reduction to 30 percent. The adoption of uncosted items that were contained in the package would further increase the cost to around the $2 billion figure that I released yesterday. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Why is a business tax review happening now when the Minister of Finance stated before the last election that any reduction in the company tax rate would be a low priority during this parliamentary term? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The major reason for the business tax review having been undertaken and for the ongoing work around it was that it was a high priority in the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour-led Government and United Future. 
Craig Foss 
: Was the Minister reported correctly in the  
Trans Tasman 
 of February 2006 where regarding tax reform he stated: “There is little point in seeking quick-fix answers or in fiddling around just lowering the corporate tax rate from 33 cents to 30 cents to match the Australian rate” and that he is “thinking in terms of much deeper cuts”; if the report is correct what has changed between the bold February report and the fiddling around of the business tax review? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I remind the member that the changes foreshadowed yesterday in their totality amount to the biggest review of business tax arrangements in this country since 1988. I regard that as bold. 
Gordon Copeland 
: What implications could the business tax review have for personal income tax rates? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: As the report yesterday indicated any move to lower the company tax rate has an obvious implication for personal tax rates. But as the report also indicated this is a review of business tax arrangements. Those implications will be considered at the time that decisions are made about the nature of any changes to business taxes. 
Gordon Copeland 
: What is the next stage of the review process from here? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The document is currently the subject of public consultation and is available for submission until 8 September. In that context I note that I wrote to Dr Brash and Mr Key before December last year to invite their participation in the review and am still awaiting a reply. Those people who wish to make submissions can do so by either going to policy.webmaster@ird.govt.nz and marking their submission “business tax review” or writing to the deputy commissioner policy advice division Inland Revenue Department PO Box 2198 Wellington with their submissions. Decisions will then be made probably early next year once we know the revenue track and the forward forecasts on the matters contained in the document yesterday and any associated issues.
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4412] 
2.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What reports if any has he received on the Government’s industry training programmes? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I am pleased to say that today I was able to congratulate in person the 2000th Modern Apprentice to have completed training Mr Simon Jervis. Also I have received an independent evaluation of the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. It shows that the scheme has had outstanding success in encouraging employers to hire and train more young people in the trades. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What reports has the Minister received of employer attitudes towards the Modern Apprenticeships scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The report I released today shows that the Modern Apprenticeships scheme is an outstanding success with employers. Ninety-five percent of employers of Modern Apprentices would recommend the programme to young staff. Ninety-four percent of employees would recommend the programme to other potential employees and employers. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that as far as anyone can calculate it the dropout rate for apprentices over the age of 20 in that scheme is about 70 percent; and why does he continue to refuse to release the figures that will show us the dropout rate for apprentices under the age of 20? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I agree with the member that some difficulties exist with some of the data being collected. 
Hon Bill English 
: You don’t like the numbers! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: But of course if he jeers at that I will not give him any more of an answer. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister believe that lifting the proportion of women in Modern Apprenticeships from 7 percent to 8 percent is consistent with the requirement under section 17 of the Modern Apprenticeship Training Act to have particular regard to the employment needs of women? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think moving from 7 percent to 8 percent might be regarded as an extreme form of Fabian socialism. We hope to do considerably better over the coming period of time particularly as we extend the Modern Apprenticeships scheme to areas with a much larger concentration of young women who are available for training.
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:632;Page:4411] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the sitting to be suspended for the dinner adjournment immediately after the valedictory statement from the Hon Jim Sutton. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:632;Page:4411] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the sitting to be suspended for the dinner adjournment immediately after the valedictory statement from the Hon Jim Sutton. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:632;Page:4410] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson may have been a little hard on Mr Field in this circumstance. I think Mr Field probably did think he had made it clear that he was getting a pecuniary interest because he actually conducted a field trip of Ministers to his house in Samoa. The Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Paul Swain went there and met the painter—the Hon Paul Swain was the Minister of Immigration at the time. So I think Mr Field did in fact think he had told his ministerial colleagues that he had all these Thai people working for him on his properties throughout the country and that he was putting pecuniary gain directly into his pocket. However if that is not a breach of this House then what is? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think we could save that for the general debate.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:632;Page:4410] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Exactly. I again ask members perhaps to take the time to consider the ruling and also perhaps more generally the distinctions between the general use of privilege and parliamentary privilege.
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:632;Page:4410] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Putting aside the consideration of whether there was any financial interest—I make no comment on that—the key point of course is: “before participating in the consideration of any item of business”. That refers to the consideration of any item of business in Parliament not outside Parliament.
Williamson Maurice: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
Williamson Maurice: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:632;Page:4409] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is it a new point of order? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It is a very very new point and it is on a very different aspect. I would like some clarification on this matter. My view of the parliamentary Standing Orders is that some of them cover privilege but Standing Orders 399 and 400 cover issues called “contempt”. The one part of Standing Order 400 that you did not refer to—you talked about paragraphs (g) (h) (i) (j) and (k)—paragraph (f) has something that certainly for myself as a member of Parliament needs to be considered very carefully. Standing Order 400 states: “Without limiting the generality of Standing Order 399 the House may treat as a contempt any of the following: … (f) as a member failing to declare before participating in the consideration of any item of business any financial interest that the member has in that business:”. 
I am happy to admit to this House that as a member of Parliament I often take up issues of immigration with Ministers and seek them to make a favourable ruling on behalf of a constituent; I openly declare that. But I have always thought that if I were to be in any way a recipient of some sort of gain be it financial special treatment or anything else then because of Standing Order 400(f) I would make it very clear in my applications to the Minister that I am seeking a favourable response because this bloke is going to cut my lawns in return for this. I would have felt that I had to say that as part of it. 
Madam Speaker Standing Order 400(f) is very clear and you have not raised it. Taito Phillip Field did not raise these matters with the Minister of Immigration as Minister to Minister. He raised them as a member of Parliament on behalf of his constituents. He had constituents seeking some help. I think part of the business we get involved in as members of Parliament as well as asking written and oral questions and as well as taking part in debate is pursuing issues with Ministers. 
It is a parliamentary duty that we take part in. We actually engage in that by way of correspondence and try to put the very best and most favourable case for the people we represent. I think if you take careful consideration Madam Speaker—and I ask you to do this—you will find that Standing Order 400(f) would at the bare minimum require Mr Field to explain on the number of cases he was taking that those people were in return for that taking part in some activities for which he would be getting a benefit.
Smith Nick: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
Smith Nick: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:632;Page:4409] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Twice in the debate on this point of order Dr Cullen has chosen to make mention of the issues involving myself with regard to some constituents which led to contempt of court charges being laid—in fact when you were Attorney-General. There is a world of difference between a member of Parliament going the extra mile for constituents who wanted to see their child—in which there was absolutely no personal interest or gain for myself; in fact exactly the opposite—and the actions that were taken by Phillip Field that were to benefit him privately. I think that needs to be put on the public record. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that but I just remind members there is a general debate coming up later.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:632;Page:4409] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think I have heard enough if Mr Brownlee does not mind. I have appreciated the points that all members have made. May I suggest to members that they do look at the ruling and look perhaps a little more generally at the difference between the way in which the word “privilege” is used in a general sense and parliamentary privilege as it is defined within our Standing Orders. I would also suggest to members and in fact they have suggested it themselves that this matter is the responsibility of members and that is why I took the opportunity to make that distinction and perhaps suggest a way forward for members because it is a serious matter.
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:632;Page:4409] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 It is quite right to take a narrow view. Indeed the member is completely mistaken in his view of the origins of parliamentary privilege. I saw two of his legal colleagues in the second row looking somewhat askance when those claims were made. They of course arise out of the assertion of our privileges vis-à-vis the king the role of Government and our ability to speak freely and to raise matters without let or hindrance than to be dealt with in the king’s courts in punishment for matters raised within this House. The member unfortunately by going into that further area really does cast aspersions upon his colleague Dr Nick Smith. If being found guilty of a contempt of court and having one’s colleagues clap in this House in support of that conviction is not exactly the kind of matter he has just raised then I have failed to understand what possibly was.
English Bill: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
English Bill: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:632;Page:4409] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If we are going to have to listen to Dr Cullen’s version of privilege then he needs to think more broadly. The reason Parliament has privileges of the nature that Dr Cullen refers to is that the public believe that that is the best way to expedite democracy and public affairs to create a privileged environment in which some things can be done that cannot be done outside. But those privileges are earned; they are not written in the constitution. They are a convention and they are earned by members of Parliament acting in a way that is consistent with the public interest. 
That is why it is such a regret to the National Party that the Speaker has taken a narrow procedural view of this matter. The privilege of Parliament is earned; it is not written in concrete or handed down from above. It is a function of the behaviour of the people who inhabit Parliament. As long as we behave ourselves consistent with the public interest then this institution will be accorded those privileges. When a member behaves in a way that is totally inconsistent with the public interest and entirely in his private interest he is undermining absolutely the reason why Parliament has privileges. That is why we take such exception to the ruling and the behaviour.
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:632;Page:4408] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was going to respond to that point of order. I will take it as a separate point of order. If the member cares to refer to Standing Order 23 he will find reference to the fact that the Speaker lays claim to the privileges of the House: “On being confirmed by the Governor-General as Speaker of a new Parliament the Speaker on behalf of the House lays claim to all the House’s privileges; especially to freedom of speech in debate to free access to the Governor-General whenever occasion may require it and that the most favourable construction may be put on all the House’s proceedings.” which is a somewhat separate matter. 
Those parliamentary privilege matters do not include issues like a Minister taking care to ensure that he or she considers carefully submissions from a member of Parliament. It does not cover issues such as personal privileges in relation to for example telephones airfares or whatever they may be. The Speaker does not go to the Governor-General to lay claim to those things under the guise of parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege exists at a higher level and for a broader public purpose than that and specifically with the right to free speech within this House without that being brought into consideration externally within the courts.
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:632;Page:4408] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If I am to accept the comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House earlier this afternoon when he said that I am confused about the ruling that you have given then I guess that confusion would be about the privilege that someone has as a member of Parliament and the privileges that go along with being a member of this House. For many outside that will be something that is not easily considered; nor are the two easily separated. That is where the whole House risks being brought into disrepute by virtue of the corruption allegations made in this particular case. 
So I seek leave for the Ingram report to be referred to the Privileges Committee in order that the committee might bring down a determination that makes it clear just what the difference is between the privileges of this House and the privilege that comes with being a member of Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.