edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3257] 
6.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What steps is the Government taking to assist exporters to enter key overseas markets? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 New Zealand firms trying to crack key markets overseas will get extra support from Budget 2006 thanks to a $64.2 million increase in market development assistance. This funding will support Kiwi firms to establish in-market representation— 
Hon Members 
: Take the shirt off. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I can see the pale Canterbury man over there. The scheme will work on a co-funding arrangement and it is a great example of how a Labour-led Government is working in partnership with Kiwi businesses to transform New Zealand into an innovative high-value economy. 
John Key 
: Are you going to wash it this week? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will not wash it with my white ones. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What other steps is the Government taking to ensure that our export performance improves? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We have designated 2007 as Export Year in order to focus on productivity and export growth. Through the Beachheads Programme we are providing valuable support to our exporters in overseas markets—support such as office solutions clustering with other New Zealand companies access to expert advice and support and the contacts and networks necessary to grow business. I might say that our performance is not helped by some people in this House. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is it correct that the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and New Zealand First commits the Government to prioritising measures to significantly grow our export sector and is the $64.2 million increase in market development assistance announced in the Budget part of that prioritisation? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If the member’s party would like to claim credit for it I am happy to share it with that party.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3253] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
I te tuatahi e patai noa ake ana ki a koe Madam Speaker kia waiho tenei patai mo apopo i te mea kaore te Minita i konei.  
[ 
I seek leave Madam Speaker to have this question left for tomorrow because the Minister is not present 
.] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has asked that the question be left until tomorrow because the Minister is not in the Chamber. I presume that leave is sought. I shall put it. Is there any objection? There is objection. Please ask the question.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3250] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise it in relation to question No. 2 and ask whether the question is indeed in order. The question asks how many New Zealand families will receive targeted tax relief through the Working for Families package. The Government cannot possibly know the answer to that question. We know it does not know because it embarked on a $21 million advertising campaign. It is not possible for the Government to work out the take-up rate for that package but we know that the take-up rate has been disappointing. Any answer the Minister attempts to give to that question will simply be pie in the sky and should be ignored by everyone. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a valid point of order; it is a matter of debate.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — France—Vice-President National Assembly 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — France—Vice-President National Assembly 
[Volume:631;Page:3249] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Mr Yves Bur Vice-President of the National Assembly of the Republic of France is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr Yves Bur accompanied by the Minister of Corrections entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Visitors — France—Vice-President National Assembly 
Visitors — France—Vice-President National Assembly 
[Volume:631;Page:3249] 
Tuesday 23 May 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
France—Vice-President National Assembly 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Mr Yves Bur Vice-President of the National Assembly of the Republic of France is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr Yves Bur accompanied by the Minister of Corrections entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Barker Rick: Budget Debate 
Barker Rick: Budget Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3413] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 The Budget is a glorious example of why Labour will win the next election and again be in Government with United Future New Zealand First and the Greens. It is a wonderful example of how the Helen Clark - led Labour Government is able to knit together the necessary majority in the House and persuade the public to support sensible policies. 
The National Party went out there at the last election on three policies: tax race and Brash. It went out there and said it would slash Government spending but would also keep up investment. No one believed it. National was going to slash Government spending whereas the Labour Party went out there with its coalition partners and said it wanted to invest in New Zealand. It said it wanted to invest in families to give tax credits for working families to put more police on the beat and more money into roads hospitals and health. The New Zealand public supported Labour at the polls. That is why we are still in Government and why we will be in Government after the next election and into the future. 
The point is that the National Party can cry as much as it wants but it has no vision. I say that because there are scales on the eyes of National members. They cannot see the investment in New Zealand. They think that if they bash New Zealand and say things are better in Australia that will win them votes. I have never seen a proud Kiwi who will stand up and say that Aussies are better than Kiwis that Australia does things better. The National Government drove more New Zealanders to Australia than any other Government when in the 1990s it slashed benefits cut wages cut penalty rates and smashed in the workers’ conditions. It did everything it could to drive New Zealanders to any country in the world but here. New Zealand went down the tubes under National in the 1990s. The New Zealand public understand and know that. The last time a National Government gave out tax cuts it cut superannuation for our superannuitants. That is what National did. That is its record—cut destroy slash and burn. 
Debate interrupted.
Fairbrother Russell: Budget Debate 
Fairbrother Russell: Budget Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3408] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a newspaper article dated Monday 5 September 2005 from a South Island newspaper that confirms what was said today about the National Government borrowing offshore to fund infrastructure which was “common in practice” said Jacqui Dean. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is. It will not be tabled.
Turner Judy: Budget Debate 
Turner Judy: Budget Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3382] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to talk about the $126 million that has been budgeted over the next 4 years to go into the aged-care sector. I believe that $58 million has been targeted towards home-based support and $68 million towards residential support. When we first heard the news those of us with real concerns about what is going on in this sector were hugely pleased. However as the days have ticked on since the Hon Michael Cullen delivered the Budget some disturbing evidence has come to light. When the sums have been done we realise that this big amount of money is falling into an even bigger hole. As we have suffered for years in roading we are facing a crisis of momentous proportions in the aged-care sector. 
The demographics are clear. We know how many elderly people we will have. We know the types of care that will be needed in the future. But what we are not completely sure about is what this Government or the major Opposition party are planning to do about it. As yet nobody has come up with a long-term plan that older citizens can rely on. Even the generation represented in this House cannot with certainty plan towards their senior years when they will require additional support. 
The crisis in this sector is twofold. First of all we have a lack of futures planning as I have just said. The second point is that our current delivery is in serious need of improvement. Although we welcome every morsel that can be thrown in its direction we have to understand that we are not making ends meet. This sector is reliant on three groups. We are reliant on two sets of providers—those who are for profit and those who are part of the not-for-profit sector who just want to stay afloat and be able to maintain their buildings and develop their services further. The other side of it is the staff and it is the staff whom I want to focus on for the remaining time. Staff are currently paid the most appalling wages. 
I want to reflect on the case of the nurses who protested outside Parliament yesterday morning. The reassurance they were given from Government speakers was appalling. They said: “You are so lucky that this Government has improved the minimum wage so many times in the last 6 years. Be reassured the minimum wage will continue to be something that we will attend to.” However most of us said: “These people shouldn’t be on the minimum wage.” The photographs that have caused so much controversy in a recent publication—and I do suggest that they were inappropriately used—reminded us of the very sensitive work concerning people’s dignity which many of us may need to rely on in the future that is done by an amazing workforce of people and we pay them the most appalling wages. In my area they leave the aged-care sector seasonally to go into the kiwifruit orchards to pick kiwifruit. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3346] 
12.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why was the deadline for the inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest involving Taito Phillip Field set for 13 days and what changed to allow this inquiry to take over 8 months with no confirmed date for reporting back? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Advice received in setting up the inquiry was that that was the appropriate time frame. Obviously that subsequently proved not to be the case. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Who in her office has Maarten Wevers briefed on the progress of the Ingram inquiry in the last 4 weeks given her statement to Parliament 2 weeks ago that he had inquired about the progress of the inquiry from time to time? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding is that Mr Wevers indeed rang the QC’s chamber after the report appeared in the paper to say that the report should be coming to the Prime Minister in due course—not progress reports being given to the  
Dominion Post 
. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: My question to the Prime Minister asked who in her office the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has briefed on the progress of the Ingram inquiry when she has acknowledged to this House that he has inquired as to the progress of the inquiry—that is my question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have just told the member that seeing the report in the paper the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet phoned Mr Ingram’s chambers to say that comment on the report should come with the report to the Prime Minister. I have spoken personally with Mr Wevers about this. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did the Prime Minister tell this Parliament only a few weeks ago that Mr Wevers had inquired as to progress on the inquiry in order that the Prime Minister could answer questions about the inquiry—a matter she now seems to want to deny today? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Over a long period of time—some 8 months as the Opposition keeps complaining—questions have been asked in this House about the inquiry and from time to time the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has inquired as to when it is likely to arrive. That advice is then fed in if it is available for me to answer questions in this House. I repeat: I do not want progress reports on substance and on what is being considered; I am awaiting a final report. I note that Opposition members initially complained that Mr Ingram did not have long enough and now they are complaining he has had too long. They should make up their minds. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why when on 27 March the Prime Minister stated she “would certainly be expecting it in the course of this recess” has she not received the report from Noel Ingram almost 2 months later; and when will we see this report or is she just hoping that the passage of time will bury it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No when that question was answered indeed the advice I had was that that was the time frame and that has proved not to be correct.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3346] 
11.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What reports if any has she received on the uptake of paid parental leave? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have seen a report detailing that in this March quarter $22.6 million has been paid to 4500 recipients. This brings the total paid parental leave payments to $263 million and the total number of recipients to 75500 since the Labour-led Government introduced the scheme in July 2002. 
Sue Moroney 
: What other recent reports has the Minister seen concerning paid parental leave? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Disappointingly I have seen a report that suggests we abandon paid parental leave. That suggestion was made by Dr Brash. But I have to admit that after long opposition to paid parental leave Dr Brash has performed yet another flaky flip-flop and now fears he supports this great scheme. It may be though that it is just another thing on the long list of things that Dr Brash plans to axe in order to pay for the extravagant tax cuts that he advocates.
Donnelly Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Donnelly Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3344] 
9.  
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Is she confident that the State Services Commissioner Dr Mark Prebble was correct when he stated in relation to his investigation into the leak of a Cabinet paper to Telecom: “I consider that neither the Telecom employee nor Telecom has any fault in the acquisition of the document.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of State 
Services 
: Yes. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does she retain that confidence in the wake of the revelation that Peter Garty was heavily criticised by the Securities Commission over his auditing of BNZ’s accounts in the late 1980s and early 1990s and is she certain that the commissioner took Mr Garty’s history of what the Securities Commission called “creative accounting” into consideration when reaching his conclusions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have no information as to whether the State Services Commissioner took those matters into account but I doubt they were relevant to the actual matter that Dr Prebble determined about the acquisition of the document. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I seek leave to table the article from the recent  
Independent 
 that outlines the Securities Commission’s findings on Mr Garty’s use of creative accounting. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3342] 
7.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on the provision of new schools to meet the needs of growth in the Auckland region? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I announced yesterday that this Government will invest $237 million over the next 10 years to build seven new schools in Flat Bush Manukau City. Those schools are part of the strategy to build approximately 40 new schools in the Auckland area over the next 15 years. This is a fantastic opportunity for a community that is projected to include more than 8500 school-age children by the year 2020. 
Moana Mackey 
: What else is the Government doing to provide a world-class learning environment for New Zealand students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government has announced in this year’s Budget a further capital funding increase for schools of $148.9 million taking the expenditure to $527.8 million in this financial year. Nationwide that means eight new schools are to be opened in 2007-08 and 250 new classrooms are to be built for schools with roll growth. Penrose High School and Porirua College will be virtually rebuilt. The planning and big investment we have made in property since 1999 means schools can now use funding to continue modernising their buildings and creating the kinds of environments that we need for learning. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What in educational parlance is the difference between a middle school and a junior high school and noting that difference are the years 7 to 10 schools planned for Flat Bush to be middle schools or junior high schools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Probably the term “middle school” is the one that best fits the kind of education that will take place in the new schools in Flat Bush. Of course that will depend a little on the principals and boards of trustees that are put in place. But that is the vision for the Flat Bush area. A school very close to the area in Albany also uses the name “junior high” and it would identify itself as using a middle school approach to teaching and learning. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why are there no single-sex schools in the Flat Bush announcement? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I looked through all 37 submissions yesterday went back through all of the consultation and talked to everybody I could possibly get in touch with to ask why that had not occurred. I found only one person who had asked for it and he was Bill English.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3336] 
3.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports if any has he received outlining an alternative fiscal approach? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have seen reports calling for very large tax cuts for increased spending on health and roads and for the maintenance of spending on education law and order and other areas signalling a return to a borrow-and-hope fiscal approach. I have also seen reports stating that substantial tax cuts are no longer affordable and that an alternative Government would spend less on health. Both these reports came from Dr Brash. 
Shane Jones 
: Has the Minister seen any reports suggesting how to fund such an alternative fiscal approach? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed. I have seen an extraordinarily novel suggestion that is quite unusual in a modern democracy. It states: “We’re not borrowing for tax cuts; we’re getting the money from offshore.” I repeat: “We’re not borrowing for tax cuts; we’re getting the money from offshore.” This was said by Jacqui Dean in the pre-election campaign period. It is not clear who was providing—[ 
Interruption 
] They disown her. She is one of theirs and she is being treated with contempt. She is not one of the boys on the front row so she must be treated with contempt. Of course Jacqui Dean never quite explained who offshore would provide this money that was not being borrowed. 
Shane Jones 
: Has the Minister received any reports of public reaction to alternative fiscal approaches based on large-scale tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have seen reports showing that in our neighbour country Australia consumer confidence has fallen interest rates have risen and support for the Government has fallen since the last Budget. 
Craig Foss 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Government will borrow about $6 billion over the next 3 years to pay for items such as Working for Families interest-free student loans and 1000 or so more front-line police or does he criticise borrowing only when attacking the economic vision and ambitions for New Zealand of the National Party? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I understand that there is a new form of eye surgery available which may give the party opposite vision but it is a big ask. 
John Key 
: If we are to believe the answers to previous questions that tax cuts are a really bad thing—that they drive down the poll results they are not good for a Government and all the other implications he stated before—why 2 hours after reading a Budget that was his seventh Budget without tax cuts did he scurry off to  
Campbell Live  
and suggest there might be tax cuts in a year or two? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Firstly I did not scurry to  
Campbell Live 
; John Campbell came to my office. Secondly I did not say that 2 hours after I delivered the Budget. I said it about 2 hours before I delivered the Budget—in the Budget lock-up.
Tabling of Documents — Ministry for the Environment Book Release 
Tabling of Documents — Ministry for the Environment Book Release 
[Volume:631;Page:3415] 
Tabling of Documents 
Ministry for the Environment Book Release 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I understand that the Ministry for the Environment released a book last night  
Gentle Footprints Boots ‘n’ All 
. I realise that the current Minister has no responsibility for that document given that it was initiated before his time or for it being poorly compared with the report  
The State of New Zealand’s Environment 1997 
. I seek leave to table  
Gentle Footprints Boots ‘n’ All 
 so that this House has the opportunity to have a good look at it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. Would members please be quiet when these questions are put. It is very hard to tell whether members are just chattering amongst themselves or making a serious comment.
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:631;Page:3415] 
Business of Select Committees 
Meetings 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following on from the Business Committee meeting this week I seek leave for the Local Government and Environment Committee to have the authority to meet in Australia from 19 to 23 June 2006 and to adopt such procedures and practices as are suitable for the conduct of its business. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:631;Page:3415] 
Thursday 25 May 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 13 June priority will be given to the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill the Historic Places Amendment Bill the Protected Objects Amendment Bill and the Coroners Bill. The first Wednesday of course will be a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of the House’s future business. I wonder whether he might tell us whether the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill which is currently sitting below the line on the Order Paper but is available to the Government when the House resumes will be debated by the full House some time in the next sitting or will it become like the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill which has been on the Order Paper for many years now? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That bill bears no relationship to the protection of trout! I am sure that when we do debate that bill it will be debated by the full House. We will determine when that will be at some point in the future.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Savings Investment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Savings Investment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3453] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates Savings Investment and Miscellaneous Provisions) 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 Finance and Expenditure Committee.referred to Finance and Expenditure Committee
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3436] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3435] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That all the words after “That” be omitted and the following inserted: “this House has no confidence in this Labour-led Government because for 7 years it has demonstrated a lack of vision and a lack of the policies to transform New Zealand into a high-income high-growth nation and has instead wasted the opportunities provided by buoyant international conditions by overtaxing New Zealanders and wasting billions of taxpayers' dollars on low-quality spending programmes.” 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Barker Rick: Budget Debate 
Barker Rick: Budget Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3432] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 The seventh Budget delivered by Michael Cullen is an outstanding Budget. It demonstrates that for the first time New Zealand has a net surplus. This country inherited decades of debt from National. Not only have we got a surplus but we are paying money into a fund to guarantee superannuation for the future. The Budget provides for more police more teachers and more social workers. We have the lowest rate of unemployment in living memory and Michael Cullen is only beginning to approach the mid-point of his career as Minister of Finance. 
This country has done fabulously well under the stewardship of the good doctor Michael Cullen. New Zealand is now one of the envies of the world for its economic stewardship. It has record lows in unemployment record savings for superannuation more police more teachers and more of everything we want. Anything that should be up is up and everything that should be down is down. It is a fantastic Budget for this country. Dr Michael Cullen will continue to deliver Budgets for the benefit of New Zealand and the Labour-led Government can look forward to many terms in office as a consequence.
Sharples Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sharples Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3428] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. He korapa kei te tuhituhinga o taku patai. I te rarangi whakamutunga ehara ko te tau tuarau engari ko te tau tuarua. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
There is an error in the way my question was written. In the last line it should be not tau tuarau—100th year—but tau tuarua—second year. 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to change that word. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3425] 
9.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: What has the Government done to support New Zealand music? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 At the end of the sixth New Zealand Music Month it gives me great pleasure to tell the House that more than $5 million per annum has been invested by this Government in New Zealand On Air Creative New Zealand Te Mangai Paho and the New Zealand Music Industry Commission. At least $19 million has gone into the support of New Zealand music through the funding of orchestras—especially the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra—opera companies Sounz the ballet and grants to composers and performers. The Government has also supported New Zealand music through the universities and the arts curriculum. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What evidence is there of the success of the Government’s music policies? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The National Party members appear not to like New Zealand music either. One example is the enormous success of the voluntary code of practice met by New Zealand radio broadcasters. It aimed to have 20 percent of New Zealand music being played across New Zealand radios. That percentage was up from 1.9 percent when National was the Government to 20.77 percent last year and we will exceed even that this year. We are seeing top New Zealand musicians selling New Zealand music. It was 28 percent of sales in New Zealand Music Month 2005. We have also seen magnificent exports with Breaks Co-op up in the top 40 in the UK. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What is the Government doing to support the export of New Zealand music? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I am very proud to be in charge of an area that demonstrates that New Zealand and New Zealanders are dynamic and willing to take risks to make better exports for all of us so we have better lives. We have put more money into New Zealand on Air with $850000 per annum going into Phase Five a programme that promotes New Zealand music to the international news media and we have provided $444000 extra to the Music Industry Commission for the Outward Sound programme which National obviously does not know about. We have put $178000 into promoting New Zealand music at music fairs and trade fairs around the world. We have also put money into the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and Sounz to tour New Zealand music internationally—to great acclaim. I am very sorry that the music coming from the other side of the House is such a sad dirge.
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3416] 
1. Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What steps is the Government taking to promote investment in the venture capital market in New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Budget 2006 delivered an additional $60 million boost to the Venture Investment Fund that with private sector leveraging will deliver $180 million to young firms with high growth potential. Through the fund we hope to speed up the commercialisation of new research and innovation and turn them into successful business opportunities. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Has he seen any evidence that alternative views on foreign investment in Australia have been considered? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. I happen to have a copy of a document on foreign investment in Australian industry. It is essentially an exercise in how to sell one’s country. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that as part of the confidence and supply agreement between the Government and New Zealand First 2007 has been nominated as Export Year and that this venture capital funding is part of the preparation for 2007? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: “Yes.” to the first part and “I am sure it will help.” as far as the second part is concerned. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Has the report he referred to in his answer to my second supplementary question been used extensively? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the short answer is no. A copy of the book has been borrowed from the Parliamentary Library three times since 1969 when it first went there. In fact the most recent borrower was the late Rt Hon Sir Robert Muldoon who borrowed it in 1986. I think it is fair to say that this book on selling out one’s country has not been a universal success. The author of course is Donald Brash.
Tanczos Nandor: Tabling of Documents — Ministry for the Environment Book Release 
Tanczos Nandor: Tabling of Documents — Ministry for the Environment Book Release 
[Volume:631;Page:3415] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I understand that the Ministry for the Environment released a book last night  
Gentle Footprints Boots ‘n’ All 
. I realise that the current Minister has no responsibility for that document given that it was initiated before his time or for it being poorly compared with the report  
The State of New Zealand’s Environment 1997 
. I seek leave to table  
Gentle Footprints Boots ‘n’ All 
 so that this House has the opportunity to have a good look at it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. Would members please be quiet when these questions are put. It is very hard to tell whether members are just chattering amongst themselves or making a serious comment.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:631;Page:3415] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following on from the Business Committee meeting this week I seek leave for the Local Government and Environment Committee to have the authority to meet in Australia from 19 to 23 June 2006 and to adopt such procedures and practices as are suitable for the conduct of its business. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:631;Page:3415] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That bill bears no relationship to the protection of trout! I am sure that when we do debate that bill it will be debated by the full House. We will determine when that will be at some point in the future.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:631;Page:3415] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of the House’s future business. I wonder whether he might tell us whether the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill which is currently sitting below the line on the Order Paper but is available to the Government when the House resumes will be debated by the full House some time in the next sitting or will it become like the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill which has been on the Order Paper for many years now?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:631;Page:3415] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 13 June priority will be given to the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill the Historic Places Amendment Bill the Protected Objects Amendment Bill and the Coroners Bill. The first Wednesday of course will be a members’ day.
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3534] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into two bills progress on the Historic Places Amendment Bill and no progress on the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3534] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3534] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 33 in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 19 be agreed to.
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3534] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 33 in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 16 be agreed to.
Pillay Lynne: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3533] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tizard Judith: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3532] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 As that matter has been raised by a number of speakers I will address it directly. The State Services Commission now recommends that rather than define the racial characteristics we require of individuals we describe the interests and the knowledge we require of individuals to apply to legislation. 
One of the points I would like to make is that some 5 years ago when I was asked by Cabinet to seek a new chair for the Historic Places Trust I went to a number of kaumatua and kuia around Auckland and New Zealand and asked them for their opinion of who would make a good chair of the trust. This trust is absolutely vital to all New Zealanders for all of our shared heritage and for all of the heritage that each group brought to New Zealand both before and after the Treaty of Waitangi. Dame Anne Salmond was recommended to me by Maori leaders as somebody who understood the shared heritage and indeed who had done a great deal to explain to Pakeha the importance of for example Maori oral history. I am not suggesting that Dame Anne Salmond alone should represent Maori views but I do not agree that anyone required as in this legislation to have knowledge of Maori heritage and Maori spiritual values should necessarily be Maori. 
Indeed on the subject of Maori being excluded I want to point out one of the other changes that was made in 1993 by Doug Graham and others to create the Maori Heritage Council as a body equal with the Historic Places Trust. So Maori are represented in this organisation as an integral part of the organisation and the legislation that defines the purpose of this legislation states that Maori heritage is central to it. Again I want to thank the Hon Brian Donnelly for his lucid support of this legislation. No not everybody on the Historic Places Trust agreed with that change but this legislation does bring it into line with other legislation. 
I want to address the other issue that is on the Green member Sue Kedgley’s Supplementary Order Paper which is that the trust must apply section 194 of the Resource Management Act to an application. I am not ever happy that we force registration on every owner. We are getting to the stage where I think New Zealanders genuinely do take pleasure and see value in historic heritage registrations but I am not happy that given that the Government Administration Committee considered this matter the Green Party now wants to change the bill without proper consideration. We can do a lot of damage in this kind of legislation. We sometimes find people refusing for example to divulge heritage values because they fear it will limit their commercial and ownership rights. I am very happy of course to promote the Supplementary Order Paper that I propose which merely changes the date but in general I am opposed to those amendments proposed by the Green Party because the select committee did not find in favour of them. With those comments I commend this bill to the Committee.
Pillay Lynne: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3524] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill  
divided into New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill 
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper35. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Vote: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3520] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
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. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Dyson Ruth: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3519] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Benson-Pope David: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3516] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I will not take up a great deal of the time of the Committee but like a lot of listeners I am growing somewhat tired of the cant we are hearing from Opposition members. [ 
Interruption 
] I will articulate and explain in a moment ladies and gentlemen. I guess no one should be surprised at National’s fascinating reinterpretation of history. This afternoon in the House we heard National members pretending they had not sold 13000 State houses. Well we know how to spell “crocodile” and no one for a long time has believed that any of the tears on the faces of National members were other than hypocrisy. 
I would like to say to Dr Hutchison in particular—who spent a great deal of time talking about how tardy this Government was in correcting this unfortunate situation—and to his little acolytes that the history goes back somewhat further than he is remembering. I am not surprised institutional memory does not exist in his party given its various electoral results in recent times but I say to Dr Hutchison that he needs to get his research unit to work because he will be interested to know— 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: What’s that got to do with the bill? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: You are about to find out if you would just listen big-ears. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Peter Gresham who was a National Government Minister in 1995—I say to Dr Hutchison that it was in 1995—had this policy issue investigated. Mr Gresham costed the correction this Government is now putting in place—apparently supported by the National Opposition although that is hard to believe when we hear the nonsense we are hearing—and he decided in 1995 not to do anything about it. I say to Opposition members that if they really believe that this is a policy step they need to do something about they should stop rabbiting on about it and support what is happening right now 11 years after their own member refused to take this step. I think that says the whole story.
Vote: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3514] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
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. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that the amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to insert new clause 6A is out of order because it has been vetoed. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Dyson Ruth: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3513] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.