edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Garrett David: Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill — First Reading 
Garrett David: Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1804] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. I intend to take only a very short call in line with my own personal view that if one has not got something worthwhile to say then one should not say anything at all. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That’ll change! 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I try to resist the temptation to become like Mr Hughes but in the meantime I will say that I noticed when looking through the bill—which I obviously was not familiar with because it was introduced last term—that two things in particular stuck out. The first thing was the provision for local alcohol plans. I note that a territorial authority may adopt an alcohol plan relating to a number of matters that are listed in proposed section 84B. That seems to me to be an eminently sensible way to proceed. 
I have the pleasure these days of living out in the country north of Auckland in an area that I commonly refer to others with great approval as “old New Zealand”. One does not have a lot of the problems out there that one has elsewhere. But I used to live in the North Shore of Auckland and again that is very different from other parts of the city. I must admit to having been a bit doubtful about claims that liquor is available at “every dairy down the street” but just the other day I had reason to be down in South Auckland and sure enough in premises that were the local dairy there was liquor on sale and one would not need to go very far to find another one. 
I can very readily see that the intent of laws in the past has been abused and it seems to me that these local alcohol plans in which such factors may be taken into account as to where the outlet may be located the maximum density for outlets—which harks back to the speech by the Hon Lianne Dalziel—and the minimum distance from other outlets etc. are eminently sensible. Who could disagree with them? 
The other provision that I noted with great approval was the concept of “three strikes and you’re out” which seems to have been introduced by the previous Labour Government. Proposed sections 135A and 135C provide for the mandatory cancellation of managers’ certificates after three incidents relating to minors within 2 years. As the House knows I am backing the “three strikes and you’re out” laws for more serious violent crimes and it is very heartening to see that the previous Labour Government recognised that the idea of having two chances but then being struck out as it were on the third is sound reasoning and a sound way to proceed. The ACT Party will be supporting this bill.
Power Simon: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Power Simon: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1795] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
on behalf of the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: I move  
That the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 11 May 2009 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189 and 190 (1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Street Maryan: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Street Maryan: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1795] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). The origins of this bill do not lie in the recession. Although the provisions of the bill may have some positive impact on the recessionary experience that our construction industry is undergoing at the moment that was not the origin of the bill. Its origin came out of the previous Government’s intention commitment and earnest desire to provide affordable housing in New Zealand. In order to get to a situation of affordable housing in New Zealand a number of blocks and barriers needed to be taken down. Shane Jones brought this bill forward as a way of dealing with some of the frustrating and difficult regulations and red tape that compounded the process of arriving at building consents. 
The bit that is particularly important in this legislation is that around national multiple-use approvals. The building industry was perfectly willing and able to recognise standard templates for building designs and to approve them according to the highest building standards but the point was to enable developers to say they would like in the course of building their hundred-house development to build 20 C1s 10 B2s and five A3s or whatever the name of the housing design was. The purpose of getting multiple-use approvals was that people could get standardised designs—they could be labelled anything at all; I have just used As Bs and Cs—that could be replicated everywhere without having to go through the process of approval. 
When in Opposition the National Party thought that this meant the Labour Government was intent on building the same houses everywhere. That was absolutely not the case and in fact I have not heard one of the Government members mention that objection in the course of this debate. Clearly those members have now cottoned on to the fact that it does not mean that; what it means is that there are standard designs that can be approved nationally—across the country—and then be picked up by a developer and all that the local body has to do is to ensure that that particular design is appropriate for the particular site. That eliminates the red tape and fast tracks the development for the developer. That is to everybody’s benefit. 
The rationale behind this bill was the terrible situation that we found ourselves in by the end of 2007: recognising that the cost of houses had gone up by some 80 percent over the previous 5 years. That situation could not be allowed to continue without some remedial action being taken. This bill was a small step but a tiny part of the jigsaw that needed to be put together along with other Government initiatives—whether they be shared equity or using State-owned land for developmental and residential housing purposes—that could be brought together as a complete package to address the housing affordability problem. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1779] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.
Robertson Grant: Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Removal of Chair of Board 
Robertson Grant: Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Removal of Chair of Board 
[Volume:652;Page:1774] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At the beginning of Dr Smith’s point of order he claimed that I had said that Labour had introduced the accident compensation scheme. I did no such thing. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has just transgressed against what I said before and told the Hon Dr Nick Smith not to do which was to use a point of order as a debating mechanism. Points of order are about order and structure.
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Removal of Chair of Board 
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Removal of Chair of Board 
[Volume:652;Page:1774] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The previous speaker made a claim that it was Labour that brought in the accident compensation scheme. I seek leave— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: If the member wants to seek leave he seeks leave but with a long introduction like that he is entering into debate. A point of order is not about debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek leave to table the original Woodhouse report and the legislation passed by Prime Minister Holyoake. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1758] 
11.  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Why has the Government recently introduced a voluntary bonding scheme for vets? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 The National-led Government is committed to building and supporting strong rural communities. New Zealand has a severe shortage of rural veterinarians. This Government will not accept this shortage and the risk it poses to our vital pastoral industries. By incentivising vet graduates to stay in hard-to-staff rural areas for up to 5 years we are confident that the critical shortage of vets in these remote areas can be largely alleviated. 
Shane Ardern 
: What reports has the Minister seen on vet bonding schemes? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Only good ones. The New Zealand Veterinary Association welcomed the scheme and praised the Government for addressing the issue. The head of veterinary science at Massey University described the scheme as “well-thought out“ and a great start. Finally Federated Farmers said it was “very positive“ and noted: “Thank goodness we have a Government that recognises the importance of the agricultural industry in this country and is doing something positive to help promote it”.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1758] 
10.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Will he exempt biofuels from excise and road-user charges in proportion to the blend and only on sustainably produced biofuels? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The Government is currently considering the options for giving effect to our policy of providing consistent tax incentives for sustainably produced biofuels. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Are the Minister and his colleagues serious about reducing the country’s overall carbon emissions; if so why would they consider bringing forward the building of the Rodney power station at a cost of over half a billion dollars when Genesis Energy told the Electricity Commission on 4 December last year that the plant had no resource consents no gas pipeline capacity and no access to a sufficient secure forward quantity of gas? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes; and I do not know. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Do the Minister’s answers not confirm the observation in yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial that he “showed little interest in the economics of electricity investment and seemed hell-bent on bulldozing any obstacle to the maximum security of supply.”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government is committed to having a regime that provides a consistent tax incentive for biofuels in New Zealand. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Genesis Energy to the Electricity Commission dated 4 December 2008 which notes that the proposed Rodney power station has no resource consents and no forward gas supply. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1757] 
9.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps has the Government taken to help schools recruit teachers in hard-to-staff locations and subjects? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Government has delivered on its 100-day promise to introduce the voluntary bonding scheme for teachers in hard-to-staff locations and subjects. This means that new teachers will be eligible for a student loan write-off or extra cash payment for 5 years if they work in hard-to-staff areas such as decile 1 or severely isolated schools or if they work in hard-to-staff subjects such as chemistry home economics mathematics and statistics physics technology or te reo Maori. 
Colin King 
: What incentives has the Government put in place to retain these teachers? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: New teachers will be eligible for a before-tax payment of $3500 per year for 5 years with the first payment occurring at the end of the third year. This means that teachers who have the average-sized student loan for a teaching graduate will be able to pay off their loans in full within 5 years through their voluntary bonding payments and their compulsory repayments. All teachers who have graduated since 2005 are eligible this year and the Ministry of Education estimates that close to 1800 teachers will be eligible this year. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Did the Minister involve the education sector in the development of the bonding scheme or did she just inform the sector what the Government wanted and then proceed with it? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: This was a campaign promise. Could one say that that involved the education sector? Yes because I went up and down the country promoting this as a policy. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Has the Minister secured funding for this initiative or is it just another National pledge to be funded by cuts to existing educational programmes? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The answer is yes. This will form part of the Budget bid earmarked for 2009.
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1752] 
5.  
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What steps are being taken to build public confidence in Community Probation and Psychological Services? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am working closely with the chief executive to ensure that public confidence in that department is restored and the chief executive has committed to rebuilding my confidence and the public’s confidence in the department and in him. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What is the department doing to address the findings of the Auditor-General’s report? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The State Services Commissioner found that although the department had a plan in place a plan is not enough in itself. Successful and rapid implementation of the plan is required. I have the assurance of the chief executive that this work will be completed as quickly as possible and both I and the State Services Commissioner will hold the chief executive to account for the effective implementation of the plan. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What other steps are being taken? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: An independent person will be appointed to chair an expert panel to review the procedures and performance measures of Community Probation and Psychological Services. The independent person and the chief executive will regularly report progress to the public and to me. I believe that an expert panel with a mix of internal and external participants with expertise in change management will assist Mr Matthews to lift performance at the department.
Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — First Reading 
Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1779] 
Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 5 March. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.
English Bill: Ministerial Statements — Accident Compensation—Ministerial Inquiry into Disclosure of Funding Shortfall in ACC Non-earners’ Account 
English Bill: Ministerial Statements — Accident Compensation—Ministerial Inquiry into Disclosure of Funding Shortfall in ACC Non-earners’ Account 
[Volume:652;Page:1547] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I agree with the member that by far the most important issue the Government now has to deal with is turning round the deteriorating performance of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). I have been appalled in this debate by the ideological blinkers of the Labour members. They still cannot accept the fact that while they were representing to the public that ACC was in great shape its performance was deteriorating rapidly. 
That brings me to the issue of responsibility under the Public Finance Act. Here is the statement of responsibility. It is signed by two people. One is John Whitehead the Secretary to the Treasury who has taken responsibility for the error that Treasury made. He has taken responsibility. He believes that the amount should have been disclosed under the Public Finance Act and it was not. But can members guess who has not taken responsibility? It is the previous Labour Government as represented by Michael Cullen who stated: “I accept overall responsibility for the integrity of the disclosures”. 
Labour members still cannot see that their blinkered ideology about the accident compensation scheme being perfect led them down a path to circumstances where they misled the public about a $1.5 billion problem. Every time those members get up in the next 3 years and ask why the Government is changing this or taking money from that I will remind them that if they had disclosed that risk—and better still had done something about managing it—then we would be in a much better position when facing times of economic restraint because there would have been $1.5 billion more to deal with the situation than there is. Labour failed to take responsibility.
Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — Accident Compensation—Ministerial Inquiry into Disclosure of Funding Shortfall in ACC Non-earners’ Account 
Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — Accident Compensation—Ministerial Inquiry into Disclosure of Funding Shortfall in ACC Non-earners’ Account 
[Volume:652;Page:1546] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 There is only one point substantially arising from this report that will concern New Zealanders and it is the revelation that about $1.5 billion is required to make good the shortfall in the non-earners account of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). The issue that that gives rise to is the question in many people’s minds about the certainty of the services provided by ACC in the future. If we believe in having a universal accident compensation system the questions that this report discloses are how that will be funded into the future and how much certainty and security there is for those people who are non-earners and who become clients of ACC in the years ahead. I would have been interested to hear during the debate this afternoon some consideration being given to how that shortfall problem will be addressed and how the accident compensation scheme will be made viable for the longer term. It is easy to indulge in political name-calling but people who have accidents and rely on the scheme will want to know where the money is coming from how the service is to be funded and what assurance they will get about their care in the future. That is what we need to focus on not on some of the more arcane matters regarding this issue. 
The procedural matters do need to be resolved. I think that the apportioning of blame is rather irrelevant in that process. What is important is the service that we will provide in the future. That is what counts.
Jones Shane: Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Shane: Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1589] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou. I stand to support the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. The word in Maori for alcohol is waipiro—rotten water or nauseating water. Of course we do not need to look at alcohol; we can look at sights around this House to feel nauseated. I feel the need to add some clarity to what Mr Nash said in respect of the current Maori representative in this House of New Zealand rugby. He was asking when that member will stand down and let Louisa Wall a fearless Maori advocate for the Maori All Blacks take his place. That is what he was saying. She has more time and does not have a history of drinking far too much after the game. 
But let us come back to this well-crafted bill. This bill is a timely reminder to parents families and the House that we can never stamp out the drinking of too much alcohol but we must ensure that one area remains heavily regulated. It is what I call the lollipop alcohol drinks. Those drinks have created utter havoc in particular in our own community Te Ao Maori amongst our rangatahi. After Michael Erceg’s sale of his alcohol empire to a private equity company—and boy I bet that company is sweating and wishing it never paid that much for it now—no company can plan to go on selling these lollipop alcohol drinks which create carnage and destruction amongst families etc. without contributing to the need to have our families educated and to challenge our parents our schools ourselves and the community to use alcohol moderately: “Unumia te inu engari kaua e tuku ko te inu hei rangatira mou—drink with pleasure but don’t allow the drink to be the rangatira for you.” 
That is why this bill contains some sensible suggestions why it should go ahead and why it will no doubt be focused on those areas in which alcohol is changing its shape and form although its ability to make the consumer feel very piro has never changed. The bill should go ahead. Kia ora tatou katoa.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1581] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I intend to take a very short call on the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill this evening. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: You don’t need to filibuster on a bill we already support. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Ha ha! I found it quite amusing that the previous speaker decided to start off by having a crack at the previous Government over the length of time taken to progress the bill as far as this reading. I am a young fella and I am just learning my way around this place so I thought I would have a look at its wisdom— 
Paul Quinn 
: Those grey hairs don’t show. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —its wisdom I tell Mr Quinn. So I thought I would look at the  
Hansard 
 of the first reading. What did I see? I saw that an utter diatribe was given by members on the National benches at that time as well. For reasons known only to themselves the National members have chosen to do that again tonight. I am not sure why that is; I am sure we have other business we can get to tonight. I do not know how many times I read in  
Hansard 
 that the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) was established by an Act of Parliament in 1976. We all know that. We know that this legislation is a technical adjustment; we know that it is about streamlining the funding for ALAC. This is a good bill. It has cross-party support and there is no real need to spend much time on it. 
I will briefly reflect on why we still need ALAC today and why it is important that the funding is sorted out so that it is nice and easy for that body and is not something it has to worry about. There is plenty of other work for ALAC to deal with. We know that New Zealand still has a problem with its drinking culture but cultures can change. We have seen that with the drink-driving culture and we have seen that with the smoking culture although there is still more work to be done on that. Plenty of things need to be done and the issues involve the drinking age the prevalence of cheap booze the act of loss-leading by supermarkets the availability of alcohol the advertising of alcohol the recent invention of alcopops or “RTDs”— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What are “RTDs” again? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —ready-to-drinks yes—and enforcement issues to do with the Sale of Liquor Act. All of those things need to be seen to and we need an independent body like ALAC to keep us as politicians reminded that those issues need to stay in the forefront of our minds. I am heartened to know that Parliament will be looking at those things later on this year. 
As I said this bill does not require too much talk; there is plenty to get on with. This is a good bill; let us get on with it. I commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Vote: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1573] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Twyford Phil: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Twyford Phil: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1567] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to complete the call interrupted by the rising of the House just a couple of weeks ago before the adjournment. The Labour Party supports the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). Significant progress has been made in this area over the last decade but much still needs to be done. 
I will note some of the progress that has been achieved over the last 10 years under Labour. The number of prison escapes per 100 prisoners was just one-sixth of the number of escapes 10 years ago under the previous National Government. That means a fall of 84 percent in the rate of escapes. Drug taking in prisons is down by 84 percent. Fewer inmates are returning positive drug-tests. Labour made it significantly more difficult for people to escape by putting in 17 kilometres of perimeter fencing. A lot of progress was made in the area of increased security and surveillance against contraband such as new security fences and electronic devices and monitoring. Increased surveillance included a doubling in the number of drug-dog teams to 12. 
All those operational initiatives need support and this bill aims to complement those operational initiatives. It aims to crack down on drug use in prisons eliminate the illicit use of cellphones enhance powers of search in relation to inmates and to those working in prisons and adopt a zero-tolerance approach towards staff who pass contraband to prisoners. Penalties will go up from 3 months to a year in prison and the maximum fine will double to $5000. 
The bill authorises the electronic detection and jamming of all cellphones used within prisons and it extends prison powers to enable inmates’ mail to be screened for unlawful or harmful communications. In doing so the bill makes consistent the ruling that applies to both telephone communications and mail. Finally the bill creates a penalty for publishing unauthorised communications from inmates that may prejudice the interests of victims. 
The men and women of our corrections service do essential work for the community and we rightly expect that our prisons will be secure safe and lawful places. This Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) will give those in our corrections service more of the tools they need to do their job. It is a good bill it is a practical bill and it was developed by the fifth Labour Government. It was improved in the select committee and was progressed by the current Government to its second and third readings. I call on the House to support this bill. Thank you.
Power Simon: Securities Disclosure and Financial Advisers  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Securities Disclosure and Financial Advisers  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1567] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Commerce Committee 
 consider the bill and report finally to the House on or before 30 April 2009. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Securities Disclosure and Financial Advisers  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Securities Disclosure and Financial Advisers  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1567] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Securities Disclosure and Financial Advisers Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time.
Turia Tariana: Ministerial Statements — Accident Compensation—Ministerial Inquiry into Disclosure of Funding Shortfall in ACC Non-earners’ Account 
Turia Tariana: Ministerial Statements — Accident Compensation—Ministerial Inquiry into Disclosure of Funding Shortfall in ACC Non-earners’ Account 
[Volume:652;Page:1546] 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. The  
National Business Review 
 called the shortfall in accident compensation funding “an A grade scandal”. The scandal is not a new one; it is one that this House has heard once too often: the scandal of failure to disclose. Previous Parliaments have been stigmatised by the improper use of parliamentary funding to purchase pledge cards the improper use of broadcasting spend and subsequent legislation to validate unlawful spending. And here we go again. 
The billion-dollar blowout at the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) should concern this House on many levels and the questions around the breach of the Public Finance Act requirements need to be resolved quickly. But my particular concern is the compounding errors that threaten the capacity of the State to provide good government and fiscal stability. The shortfall in the non-earners account was known to ACC the Department of Labour and Treasury; today we hear that the officials are being blamed by members of the previous Government. I read from a statement of responsibility: “I accept overall responsibility for the integrity of the disclosures contained in this Update and the consistency and completeness of the Update information in accordance with the requirements of the Public Finance Act 1989.” I understand that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen signed that statement. 
Last week the Government’s Job Summit agreed to a key recommendation that we must ensure that the Government’s services to Maori deliver effective results. All the data available to ACC in regard to current Government delivery of accident compensation to Maori shows that Maori are not receiving entitlements to care rehabilitation and compensation at a level comparable to the proportion of Maori in the population.
Douglas Roger: Ministerial Statements — Accident Compensation—Ministerial Inquiry into Disclosure of Funding Shortfall in ACC Non-earners’ Account 
Douglas Roger: Ministerial Statements — Accident Compensation—Ministerial Inquiry into Disclosure of Funding Shortfall in ACC Non-earners’ Account 
[Volume:652;Page:1545] 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 Today it has been revealed that Labour did not heed the reporting requirements placed on a Government. The previous Prime Minister and the previous Minister of Finance were so arrogant that they thought the law did not apply to them. They thought the law did not apply to them. They seem to have been aided and abetted in that by Treasury’s inexcusable incompetence. The previous Prime Minister and previous Minister of Finance knew there was a shortfall in the accounts but they decided they would not declare it despite what the previous Minister of Finance said in the updated statement of fiscal responsibility. He said: “To enable the Treasury to prepare this Update I have ensured that the Secretary to the Treasury has been advised of all Government decisions and other circumstances”—and other circumstances—“as at 17 September 2008 of which I was aware and that had material economic … implications.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And he had. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: No way! The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) costs of $1.5 billion were not— 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think that anybody in the House should have to put up with the barrage that is going on now. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I ask the member to quieten his comments. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well for goodness’ sake! Get him to tell the truth. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member cannot imply that another member is not telling the truth. These are debating points and I ask that we just stick to the debate. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: The Labour Government knew the country faced a deficit of $1.5 billion and it decided to ignore that. Labour members ignored it because they knew that was the tip of the iceberg. They knew ACC was essentially bankrupt and they went on to ignore that. The only reason that we can say it was not bankrupt is that that would impose a cost on all of us.
Mallard Trevor: Ministerial Statements — Accident Compensation—Ministerial Inquiry into Disclosure of Funding Shortfall in ACC Non-earners’ Account 
Mallard Trevor: Ministerial Statements — Accident Compensation—Ministerial Inquiry into Disclosure of Funding Shortfall in ACC Non-earners’ Account 
[Volume:652;Page:1544] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt Mr Cunliffe during his response on behalf of the Opposition but I do want to refer to the ruling you made at the end of Mr English’s speech following his invitation to you to do so and to make it clear that I have reviewed Standing Orders 347(1) and (2) in chapter 7 and also Speakers’ rulings 127/3-5 and 128/1—that is all those that relate to ministerial statements. There has not been either a Standing Order or a Speaker’s ruling in the past that states that ministerial statements should be heard in silence. Before your ruling goes on the record I ask you to contemplate that because it would be a major change. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I will give that matter my consideration.
Anderton Jim: Voting — Correction—Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining)  Amendment Bill 
Anderton Jim: Voting — Correction—Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining)  Amendment Bill 
[Volume:652;Page:1538] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I seek leave for the votes cast in my name on 19 February on the first reading and subsequent referral of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill to be altered from being recorded with the Noes to being recorded with the Ayes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection. The correct result of the two votes is now Ayes 111 and Noes 9.
Ardern Jacinda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ardern Jacinda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1538] 
12.  
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: Does she agree with the statement by the Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft that boot camps for young offenders are “arguably the least successful sentence in the Western world”; if not why not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 Yes I agree with Judge Becroft. That is why we are not following that model. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does the Minister agree then with the statement made by her leader John Key that the Government’s programme would require young people who are serious offenders to take part in military-style activity programmes run by the army using army-type facilities or training methods? And if she does not think that is a boot camp then what is it? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes I do agree with the Prime Minister. In fact I have seen a  
Waikato Times  
editorial that says that National has done its homework on this policy. The editorial states: “A boot camp on its own will achieve nothing but combined with mentoring drug and alcohol rehabilitation and educational programmes it is better than sitting idly by as young thugs turn into older thugs.” 
Simon Bridges 
: What reports has the Minister seen on what works for young offenders? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We know that the thousand worst offenders that Fresh Start targets need a programme of long-term wraparound care intensive monitoring self-discipline personal responsibility drug and alcohol treatment and parenting skills. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does she know what her mentoring programmes for young offenders will involve given they are such an integral part of her Government’s recent bill or does she stand by her statement made at the Rotorua youth planning day that mentoring is “just another fancy word”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes I do stand by what we need to do as far as mentoring programmes are concerned. We are going to make sure they are truly effective and not just about words but about action. The simple truth is that if we keep doing the same stuff we will get the same results. This Government says that is not good enough. 
Simon Bridges 
: Why is the Minister proposing changes to the Youth Court’s powers? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We know that the system works for the majority of young people but there are a small group of recidivist serious offenders. We listened to feedback from the judiciary which wanted a wider range of tools to individualise sentences. It also wanted longer sentences to have the chance to make a real difference in those offenders’ lives. That is what we are giving the judiciary.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1537] 
11.  
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What steps has he taken recently to accelerate investment in the national electricity grid? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Yesterday I released a new  
Draft Government Policy Statement on Electricity Governance 
 for consultation. The new policy proposes streamlined and simplified processes for transmission investments that are under $20 million in value. The current processes can involve lengthy duplication of engineering and systems planning. Although the work was already in progress I was interested to see that this proposal was a recommendation made at last Friday’s Job Summit. 
Jonathan Young 
: What further steps will the Minister be taking to ensure investment in the national grid? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am currently working on terms of reference for a ministerial working party to look at disentangling the overlapping roles of the Electricity Commission the Commerce Commission and Transpower. There has been a great deal of criticism of the current regulatory and governance arrangements. The aim of the working party will be to improve those arrangements.
Horomia Parekura: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Horomia Parekura: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1537] 
10.  
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports if any has he received on what effect the Government’s tax cut package will have on Maori incomes? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received reports on what effects the Government’s tax cut package might have on Maori incomes. It will increase their after-tax incomes. However I have received another report that the Labour Party has proposed that the Government not proceed with tax cuts. The after-tax incomes of Maori would go down if we followed Labour’s policy. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What is the Minister’s response to the statement from the Minister of Maori Affairs that his Maori Party felt forced to vote in favour of National’s tax cut legislation which does not benefit low and middle income workers even though it did not want to? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Maori Party supported the Government’s income tax cuts and I think that now it knows that Labour’s policy is to do away with tax cuts it will be very pleased that it supported National’s policy because it means that the incomes of Maori will go up instead of going down. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Is the Minister of Finance answering questions on Maori issues instead of the Minister of Maori Affairs because the Minister of Finance is worried that Dr Sharples would confirm that he opposes the 1 April tax cuts which leave out low-income workers and the 90-day fire-at-will law or is it because the Minister of Maori Affairs did not want to answer the question? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Labour Party needs to work out whether its policy is the one it ran before the election of lower taxes or the one it ran last week of not having lower taxes. A lot of Maori voters would be interested to know that because what they do know is that under National they will get tax cuts on 1 April and they will be better off because of those tax cuts whereas if Labour were in power it would be abandoning the tax cuts and Maori voters would be worse off.
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1536] 
9.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Are those who are offered employment under the 90-day probation law entitled to the same support from Work and Income as those offered employment not under the 90-day probation law? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
:  
No they are offered more protection. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why then has a Christchurch Work and Income office declined an application for relocation assistance from an unemployed person who had just found a job on the grounds that the job was subject to the 90-day trial and therefore not considered “permanent employment” by Work and Income? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It must have been yesterday that that information came through because the law came into effect on Sunday. Otherwise it simply cannot be true that the employee was under the 90-day employment trial period. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What impact does the Minister think the legislation will have on beneficiaries’ ability to move into employment? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This legislation is an incentive for employers to give a beneficiary a go. Most beneficiaries just want a chance to improve their lives and get into paid work. I believe that this 90-day trial period will give them that chance. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister give an assurance that in future unemployed people who find themselves in jobs that are subject to the 90-day probationary period will have their employment counted as a real job and will be offered the same entitlements as any others who find themselves work—which after all is what the Government so badly wants them to do? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This Government’s main focus and priorities are on helping people into work and into jobs and there are many individual scenarios when dealing with those people. I would welcome seeing the particular case that has come to the member’s attention because our whole intention is to help people into work wherever possible. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: How will the Minister guarantee that Work and Income staff members do not play judge and jury where there is some doubt about who is at fault in cases where workers are fired during the 90-day trial? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Our intention is that we will look at the individual circumstances of the person and in discussion with both that person and the employer—as is the current practice—we will make decisions on all benefit entitlements.
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1532] 
6.  
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What assistance will be available to help the affected workers and communities as a result of the decision to lay off as many as 180 jobs from Sealord’s processing plant in Nelson? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Work and Income has a longstanding relationship with Sealord. With the local MP Dr Nick Smith Work and Income is already working alongside Sealord to mitigate the effects of the lay-offs. Work and Income is meeting with Sealord this week to provide on-site individualised support. It is coordinating support and services with other agencies helping staff find other jobs offering help with CV preparation and upskilling and providing information about the income support that is available including this Government’s ReStart package. 
Rahui Katene 
: Has the Minister seen the statement from the Service and Food Workers Union that suggests that Sealord may introduce a $70-a-week cut in wages across the board for workers who would otherwise face dismissal; and what action can the Government take to provide other options for Sealord? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: In the short term Work and Income will be on-site on Friday having further discussions on how it can best support these workers. Work and Income will work to ensure that people are receiving any income assistance that they are entitled to. For example they may be entitled to accommodation assistance or Working for Families assistance. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can the Minister confirm that many of the workers who are losing their jobs are women who are supplementing their families’ incomes just to keep their heads above water; if so will she support a policy of providing a job seekers allowance to second-income earners who are made redundant but are unable to get a benefit until they get back to work? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We are in unprecedented tough times. We certainly acknowledge that women who are in that position are in for tough times. I encourage them to go to Work and Income to check their partners’ income to check how it works against them and to check whether they are eligible for some sort of assistance. 
Rahui Katene 
: Is the Minister aware that the Maori shareholders of Sealord attended the Prime Minister’s Job Summit last Friday and what plans does the Government have for working with companies to make them responsible employers? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes I am aware that they were there. I am not in the business of telling businesses how to run their businesses. What I am here to do is support those workers and those employees who need that assistance via Work and Income.