edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:4777] 
12.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: Why did the Government commission the report from Donn Armstrong on the land tenure process and when will it be released to all interested parties? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 The Government commissioned the report as part of its work on rentals for high country pastoral leases. I recognise the interest in the report and hope to be in a position to release it next month. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why did he tell the South Island high country Federated Farmers conference on 9 June that he would release the report by the end of June; why has he failed to do so? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He lies like everybody else in the Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please restrain themselves. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I had hoped to release the report before now. The delays have been caused by my desire to seek legal advice to ensure that the provisions of the Land Act and the Crown Pastoral Land Act are correctly applied. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why did he write to the Primary Production Committee on 27 June stating that he would make the report available to the select committee by the end of July—and again he failed to do so? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The reason for the delay is the same. I say again that the reason for the delay was that I sought legal advice to ensure that the provisions of the Land Act and the Crown Pastoral Land Act are correctly applied. 
Hon David Carter 
: What is so unpalatable in this report that it prevents him from releasing it; or is there some other reason that he is not prepared to make it available to the high country farmers? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There is no hidden agenda here but I am determined that the Crown correctly apply the provisions in the law to ensure that we charge and receive the legally mandated rents. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What action does the Government intend to take if indeed the report finds that the method of land valuation used so far in the land tenure process has either been flawed or unfair? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am as I said in reply to the prior question of the view that the department has no choice but to apply the rent-setting provisions in the Land Act and the Crown Pastoral Land Act. 
Hon David Carter 
: How much money did the taxpayer pay for this report which the Minister to date has hidden from taxpayers? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do not have that number with me today.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:4775] 
9.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on the number of New Zealanders employed and unemployed? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am pleased to inform the House that the household labour force survey for the quarter ended June 2006 shows that the unemployment rate has fallen 0.3 percentage points to 3.6 percent. That is New Zealand’s equal-lowest unemployment rate on record. Labour force participation has increased to 68.8 percent—the highest rate ever recorded—and 2129000 New Zealanders are now in work which is the highest level of employment ever recorded and which is up 22000 from the previous quarter. These results are I believe a strong endorsement of this Labour-led Government’s management of the economy. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What other reports has he seen with regard to the household labour force survey? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have seen expert comment from the Westpac Banking Corporation that: “The unemployment rate is back to historic lows employment growth was remarkably strong”. That bulletin also states: “The results are in sharp contrast with business surveys”. I have also seen a report about why this contrast might be so: “There has been a pattern emerging of companies shedding employees and while it is a small stream it is constant. That reflects the economic slowdown and it is only starting to be felt on the employment front.” That was John Key in April this year talking down the economy and demonstrating his ignorance of the fact that we have a dynamic labour market where for every 23 jobs lost 26 are created. That equates to 44000 more people in work now than at the beginning of this year.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:4772] 
7.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What recent announcements has she made concerning New Zealand’s ACC system? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Last week I announced a forthcoming merger of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) self-employed work account and the ACC employers account. These accounts were separated solely for the purpose of privatisation. Our Government is committed to a fair and simple accident compensation scheme and it is our intention to continue to make accident compensation levy rates fairer for all. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has she received any other reports regarding potential changes to New Zealand’s world-class accident compensation system? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. I was stunned to read recently of a policy release from the National Party. Sadly it was a rerun of the party’s 1990s privatisation agenda driven either by dogged pursuit of ideology or by the price the National Party has to pay for campaign funding from the insurance industry. 
Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Is the Minister aware of the research from Dr Peter Jansen on Maori consumer use and experience of health and disability and ACC services that reveals Maori are currently not receiving entitlements to care rehabilitation and compensation at a level comparable to the proportion of Maori in the population and how can she explain this given the research also reports that Maori have greater need but less access to treatment? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I am familiar with that research and I share entirely the concerns indicated by the member in her supplementary question. It is obvious from statistics about workplaces for Maori in New Zealand that they are overrepresented in high-risk industries and under-represented in claims and entitlements from ACC. I am committed to ensuring that all New Zealanders receive the compensation and rehabilitation to which they are entitled.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:4766] 
2.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What progress is the Government making to improve access for New Zealand stone fruit to export markets? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Following the granting of access to export stone fruit from New Zealand to Western Australia last week there are currently no outstanding market access issues for stone fruit going from New Zealand to any export market. After a hard-fought battle for access—which seems to be the only kind with biosecurity issues—Biosecurity Australia released a policy memorandum last week that allows access for New Zealand apricots nectarines peaches and plums to the Western Australian market. The first exports are expected in December and will ultimately lead to exports worth around $14 million. I know that the National Party will be delighted in the success of biosecurity issues in this matter. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What practical access to the Western Australian market will there be for New Zealand stone fruit growers? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: New Zealand has been able to export cherries to Western Australia since 2003 but New Zealand apricots nectarines peaches and plums have been prohibited because of concerns about the risk posed by the oriental fruit moth. Initially these exports to Western Australia will for all practical purposes be limited to exports from the South Island as this area is free of the oriental fruit moth. Stone fruit from the North Island will still be given access but under different conditions and those will be negotiated over the longer term. Although that limitation is of course of concern apricots from the South Island make up 90 percent of New Zealand’s stone fruit exports. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: How many representations has the Minister made to Biosecurity Australia in regard to the continuing problem of access for New Zealand apples to the Australian market; and what outcomes were achieved as a result of those representations? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Impossible things we do daily; miracles take a bit longer! We are of course in close consultation with Biosecurity Australia. The industry and the Government have made submissions to its import risk-analysis process. We are expecting decisions before the end of this year and New Zealand of course has the issue of apples at the World Trade Organization Sanitary and Phytosanitary Committee and we will reserve our rights to take that further depending on the outcomes of the risk-analysis process going on at the present time.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Germany—Committee for Labour and Social Services Bundestag 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Germany—Committee for Labour and Social Services Bundestag 
[Volume:633;Page:4763] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Committee for Labour and Social Services from the Bundestag Federal Republic of Germany led by Dr Ralf Brauksiepe are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:633;Page:4827] 
Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Under Standing Order 71 there is an option to postpone the bill. Looking at Speaker’s ruling 23/1 I move  
That the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith be postponed until 6 September being the next members’ day which the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings provide for. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I assume the chief Opposition Whip is doing this on the basis that the member in charge of the bill is not present to move the motion for the first reading. The bill would be deferred until the next members’ sitting day? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is what he indicated yes. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Yes I confirm that that is the next members’ day. The member is not present and I am moving the motion on his behalf. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: And the member agrees? The member has given his consent? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Yes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has consented. 
Motion agreed to.
Visitors — Germany—Committee for Labour and Social Services Bundestag 
Visitors — Germany—Committee for Labour and Social Services Bundestag 
[Volume:633;Page:4763] 
Wednesday 23 August 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2.15 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Germany—Committee for Labour and Social Services Bundestag 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Committee for Labour and Social Services from the Bundestag Federal Republic of Germany led by Dr Ralf Brauksiepe are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Roy Eric: Meat Board Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Roy Eric: Meat Board Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4880] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call on the third reading of the Meat Board Amendment Bill. This certainly is an issue that needs to be settled. The ambiguity that was mentioned is not at all helpful to one of our prestige industries. The meat industry is such an industry. 
I remind members that about 20 years ago we had 70 million - odd sheep and we were killing lambs when we got short of feed or short of money. There has been a total reversal in the attitude of the producers today as well as the processors and the marketers. Today we have somewhere under 40 million sheep and we are producing the same tonnage of sheepmeat. 
Today the product in the market place has certainly elevated in status from somewhere on the bottom shelf to the second-top shelf if not the top shelf in terms of value and prestige. New Zealand is indeed fortunate that it has access to the highest-paid markets in the world and they are the quota markets of the European Union. We are also fortunate that we have a significant proportion of the quota trade. If we look at sheepmeat traded internationally we see that New Zealand has about 55 percent of the sheepmeat traded across borders—that is referring to the European Union as one particular border. So we are a very big player and we have a quota market into the European Union. 
It is significant to note that the quota rent comes back to New Zealand because the quota is owned by New Zealand it is protected by statute and it is managed by the industry. That is a very intricate and interesting relationship. We have the three players operating together to deliver the value which we do have out of our quota markets. 
Debate interrupted.
Chadwick Steve: Meat Board Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Meat Board Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4880] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am proud to take a quick call on the Meat Board Amendment Bill following the previous member Nathan Guy who mentioned “clean and green”. Well a member has to be a bit green to start to accuse the Government of being corrupt and Nathan Guy must come clean himself about the role he is still undertaking with his district council and whether he is drawing a salary. 
I just want to get on record that Federated Farmers currently have scored our Minister of Agriculture Jim Anderton 10 out of 10 for his relationship with the rural sector. I must ask the member opposite how long ago it was that a National Government Minister of Agriculture had such a good attitude and relationship with the rural sector. I want that to be on the record. 
This bill simply removes the ambiguity that could get in the way of our current trading relationships with our trading partners. I congratulate the Primary Production Committee on getting through its considerations quickly. It is an important symbol to the rural sector that we will move quickly when we have to get impediments to trade out of the way. If that is what the Meat Board wants that is what the bill will deliver. It is a good thing for rural New Zealand. Thank you.
Pillay Lynne: Coroners Bill — Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Coroners Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4875] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 As chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee it is with pleasure and pride that I stand to speak in support of the Coroners Bill. I acknowledge the committee for its skill and commitment in ensuring that the bill was returned to the House improved in order to ensure that the key provisions were enhanced. Those provisions were establishing the office of a chief coroner moving to a smaller number of mostly full-time and legally qualified coroners ensuring that families are notified at significant steps of the process introducing a regime for the retention and release of body parts and bodily samples and enhancing the inquiry and inquest processes. That is really important in order to enhance public confidence during what is a very very difficult time for families. 
I acknowledge the sterling work of coroners over many years the majority of whom were very supportive of the bill and its changes to enhance the coronial system. I also cannot go past this opportunity without acknowledging JPs who have contributed so much in a very meaningful way and I have to say on a voluntary basis. It was important to the members of the committee that the report recognised the tremendous service that JPs have provided over many many years. 
The only significant issue of disagreement between committee members related to the issue of compensation for retiring coroners which was raised by a very very small number of coroners. The majority of the committee and indeed the majority of coroners held the view that compensation was inappropriate. However Dr Worth of the National Party appointed himself as the shop steward for the retiring coroners and advocated for a compensation package. I would hope that the National members show the same consideration for workers’ rights and withdraw Wayne Mapp’s 90-day “dismiss at will” bill. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mark Ron: Coroners Bill — Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Coroners Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4869] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to say just a few words from New Zealand First’s perspective on the passing of this bill and to indicate again that we will support the bill’s passage through its third reading. Pretty much everything has been said but I think it is worth noting that we are all agreed—and not just from the Justice and Electoral Committee’s examination of the bill and of the former coronial system as opposed to the system proposed in the bill—that the past system was viewed as troubled. Chris Finlayson said it was haphazard and I think that was a very apt description. The procedures were inadequate and inconsistent. Performance standards varied. There was not really a professional path for coroners as is proposed in this bill. 
In particular we note with some pleasure the greater recognition of the rights of families and the greater emphasis on cultural and spiritual sensitivity in the procedures that have to be followed. I do not think this country will ever look back upon the affairs at Green Lane Hospital with any great sense of pride. What happened there in terms of the collection and storage of body parts was offensive to many cultures within this country not just to Maoridom. It is hard in this day and age to comprehend that such acts could or would occur. The procedures as defined in this legislation and the rights as stated now for the families involved are very clear. Hopefully that will see an end to any practices such as those we witnessed. 
The key thing to remember is that this bill will enhance professionalism. We listened to the arguments—and they were good arguments—put up by various members of the House led again I think by Chris Finlayson as to the rights of those who are currently serving as coroners and their concerns that they would not be compensated for losing their appointments. But New Zealand First notes there is nothing to prevent those people from applying to be appointed as coroners again. The greater advantage will be that they will be full-time coroners and will be paid salaries determined by the Remuneration Authority. The very same Remuneration Authority that sets the wages and allowances for members of Parliament will now be doing that for coroners. 
I finish by saying that just as in the case of the justices of the peace legislation that went through recently it is good to see that some of the inconsistencies in services provided by the Government over the last 20 years—systems and procedures that have become outdated and outmoded—are being addressed. The justices of the peace legislation was a good step. The Coroners Bill is again a good step. From my side of the House I look forward to seeing a similar review of the security guards and private investigators legislation. It is another Act that is out of date by some 34 years and it is one that I have had discussions on with the Minister Clayton Cosgrove. I think that when we have finally tidied up that legislation we will look back and as with this bill wonder why we did not do something about it a long time ago.
Cosgrove Clayton: Coroners Bill — Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Coroners Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4869] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I join my colleague the Minister for Courts in supporting the Coroners Bill. I also pay tribute to a coroner of long standing in my electorate of Waimakariri who came to see me some time ago when this bill was going through its earlier stages. His advice—and his view as a person who has been dedicated in a professional sense to this sort of work for many years—was very helpful. He is a lawyer in my electorate one David Crerar. This bill is about moving from a system that had dedicated folks in it but was somewhat ad hoc and fragmented to a far more professional and coordinated coronial system and I share the Minister’s views in that respect. 
I want to address just a couple of things that Mr Finlayson said—apart from the pomposity that he injects into speeches sometimes. I am told of Mr Finlayson that he fell in love with himself at the age of 4 and has been absolutely faithful ever since and that is exhibited in Parliament. He spoke about JPs and lamented the fact that somehow on the passing on this bill there would be a passing of JPs. Well as he said later on in his address there has to be legal training in respect of these positions as we move to a far more professionalised system. 
As the Minister who is charged with looking after those eminent Kiwis who are JPs I can assure Mr Finlayson that there will not be some sort of great passing of JPs into the wilderness. JPs will continue to do their ministerial and judicial duties which they have done so well over the last 100-odd years. However many of them are not legally trained and therefore as we ramp this system up to a higher plane shall we say there is a need for training to be injected into the system. 
I think this is a superb bill. The bill deals with tragic circumstances. Ultimately when families are part of a coronial inquiry it is about tragedy. It is a very serious issue that has been dealt with by the coroners who have served for many years in a very respectful way. The coronial role is a difficult office with difficult decisions and difficult analyses to make. I pay tribute to those coroners and I look forward to the passage of this bill.
Vote: KiwiSaver Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: KiwiSaver Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4865] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the KiwiSaver Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time.
Robertson H V Ross: KiwiSaver Bill — Second Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: KiwiSaver Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4858] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member for the benefit of the previous speaker I refer him to Speakers’ rulings 45/4 and 5 of Speaker Jack Acting Speaker Young and Assistant Speaker Braybrooke. The member is new and I have shown some tolerance and understanding.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:4841] 
11.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What is the Government doing to promote drug and alcohol rehabilitation in prisons? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Under the Effective Interventions package which the Government announced last week the Department of Corrections will be significantly increasing the number of drug treatment placements within prisons. We will also be expanding the availability in the community of drug alcohol and mental health services for offenders. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What reports has the Minister seen on prisoner rehabilitation programmes? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I have seen two. First an editorial in the  
Nelson Mail 
 stated: “Of real significance … is the funding of two new prison alcohol and drug units and two general purpose rehabilitation units. The second report stated: “There has never been a stronger argument for effective rehabilitation programmes.” That comment came from Simon Power and we welcome his support. 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm that the number of prisoners testing positive for amphetamine-type drugs since 1999 has increased five times; and after 7 years in office why is the Government doing something about it only now—given that only 74 inmates completed a drug treatment programme last year yet 83 percent of inmates have drug or alcohol dependency? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The member is rather liberal with the statistics. Although there has been an increase in the number of people tested for methamphetamine the total number of people who have been identified through random drug-testing as using drugs in prison is the lowest level ever—far lower than under the previous Government—and we will continue to do random testing to identify those people. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister aware that of the 105000-odd convictions in 2005— approximately 80 percent of which were alcohol and drug related—sentencing judges ordered less than 4 percent of offenders to undergo counselling and/or treatment programmes; if so does it concern him that judges themselves may be contributing to the high levels of recidivism and reimprisonment rates through their reluctance to order rehabilitative treatment as part of the sentence handed down and what is his Government going to do about that situation? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The Government is doing a number of things about that. We are improving the screening process for those issues when prisoners come into prison. We have through Effective Interventions identified the need for a greater amount of drug and alcohol treatment both within prison and within the community. We are confident that judges knowing of these extra facilities will sentence those prisoners to undertake drug and alcohol programmes.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:4838] 
9.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing to further reduce pupil-teacher ratios? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have a spot of good news. Yesterday I announced a $26 million initiative that will allow primary schools to employ an additional 455 teachers from next year. This builds on the 3040 new teacher positions that Labour has created since 1999 and brings our annual investment in extra staffing to more than $200 million a year. These teachers are above what is needed for normal roll growth and will reduce teacher-pupil ratios ease teacher workloads and improve learning outcomes for our students. I am sure the policy is endorsed by the entire House. 
Moana Mackey 
: If the Government now spends more than $1.5 billion a year on school staffing resulting in a reduction in class sizes does the Minister intend to do anything further to reduce class sizes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This Government will continue to reduce class sizes in every New Zealand school. This includes a commitment to employ around 1300 extra primary school teachers so that by 2008 there is a ratio of one teacher to every 15 students in junior classes. Our teacher supply policies are already having a major impact on the number of new teachers coming into schools the number of Kiwi teachers returning to this country and the number of overseas-trained teachers coming here to teach. Unlike Tau Henare from the National Party we support teachers. He does not. That is why they vote Labour. 
Pita Paraone 
: Would the Minister explain why teachers with 4-year university qualifications are still having to carry out crossing duties; would we not get more bangs for taxpayers’ bucks through the development of a paraprofessional group of workers in schools to carry out small-group and one-to-one tuition under the supervision of fully trained professionals? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think that is an interesting idea. It was one of the things that has developed around a discussion of support and ancillary staff in schools. The way schools operate these days one can see that those staff are becoming permanent. The debate is really as to what their future role will be so that professionals can carry on with their core jobs. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: What progress has been achieved in implementing the recommendations contained in the report of the School Staffing Review Group that there should be a teacher-pupil ratio of no greater than 1:15 in kura kaupapa Maori and in total Maori immersion and qualifying Maori bilingual classes in regular schools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The implementation of that part of the school staffing report of course depends upon our ability to recruit teachers who are fluent in te reo. At the moment as the member will know that is one of the challenges we have in workforce development. But we still have that goal and as fast as we can supply those teachers those numbers will come down.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:4836] 
7.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What interactions if any has he or his department had with Nga Kaihautu o Te Arawa regarding the status of Ngati Rangiteaorere subsequent to the initialling of the Te Arawa deed of settlement at Parliament on 8 August 2006? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: None. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware that in the last 16 days Ngati Rangiteaorere have withdrawn from Nga Kaihautu o Te Arawa; and can he explain whether those associated with Nga Kaihautu o Te Arawa will still receive the $36 million which was inclusive of Ngati Rangiteaorere or will the allocation be reduced accordingly; if so by what amount? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Any withdrawal of Rangiteaorere’s membership in terms of its registered affiliates is really an issue between Rangiteaorere and the Nga Kaihautu o Te Arawa Executive Council. As for modification of the entire claim that has been done in terms of an area known as Rangitoto maunga. It is acknowledged that Rangiteaorere do have interests in that maunga and therefore the modification has taken place. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: How will the Minister ensure that those members of Ngati Rangiteaorere who declared Ngati Rangiteaorere as their iwi and who have now withdrawn from Nga Kaihautu o Te Arawa will not participate in voting particularly in ratification votes for other tribes of Nga Kaihautu o Te Arawa? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I cannot give the member that assurance. Those of Rangiteaorere also whakapapa to other iwi involved in the claim.
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:4833] 
3.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Does Child Youth and Family record the number of complaints received from those who feel unfairly treated by the actions procedures or decisions of the department; if so how many complaints have been received in the last 5 years? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 I am advised that all complaints that the department receives are thoroughly investigated but currently there is no central database that captures all complaints made to Child Youth and Family staff. 
Judy Turner 
: Does she agree that Child Youth and Family should be accountable to an organisation outside itself given its statutory powers; if so will she support the call of United Future to establish an independent complaints authority for Child Youth and Family? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I certainly agree that the actions of Child Youth and Family staff like all other public servants should be accountable. In terms of the latter part of the member’s question I am certainly prepared to review existing pathways for complaints to be made—for example the Social Workers Registration Board the Office of the Ombudsmen the Privacy Commissioner the Human Rights Commission and any others—and will discuss the outcomes of those considerations with the member. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What is Child Youth and Family doing to strengthen its complaints procedures? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am pleased to advise that work is under way to develop a new national database that will ensure that complaints can be collated centrally. The database is just one of the benefits we are seeing as a result of the merger between Child Youth and Family Services and the Ministry of Social Development. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister aware that the Police Complaints Authority—for which the Child Youth and Family’s equivalent could be considered comparable—costs approximately $2.1 million per year yet its effect on public confidence and accountability is considered priceless; if so is not a Child Youth and Family complaints authority a very small cost for a very significant and necessary benefit for parents and families? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I am familiar with those figures and I will certainly take that information into consideration when undertaking the existing complaints pathways review. 
Judith Collins 
: Why is Child Youth and Family struggling to keep accurate records and continuing to produce incorrect details of the delays around unallocated child abuse cases as it has on a number of occasions this year? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: This is not a case of any department including Child Youth and Family struggling. There is no database to collect that information centrally. With regard to the second part of the question I agree that inaccurate information is totally unacceptable and I have certainly relayed that view to the chief executive.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General's Report 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General's Report 
[Volume:633;Page:4830] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It may help this whole matter if you do prepare something for Tuesday just to explain the difference between being Speaker and being the Minister responsible. It might save a lot of trouble further down the track. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am quite happy to hold a seminar outside House time for those members who would find it interesting.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General's Report 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General's Report 
[Volume:633;Page:4829] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled. A new point of order is perfectly acceptable but I have ruled on that matter. 
SIMON POWER 
: I just wish to emphasise that although all information may not be to hand the Solicitor-General’s opinion as I understand it is in its final form and any assistance you would be able to give the House on the interpretation of that matter pursuant to the Parliamentary Service handbook would be helpful. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the matter. It is not a matter for the Speaker; it is a matter for the Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service which has a totally different capacity.
Power Simon: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General's Report 
Power Simon: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General's Report 
[Volume:633;Page:4829] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General's Report 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General's Report 
[Volume:633;Page:4829] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is not a point of order of this House because in respect of the matters raised the role the Speaker has is that of Minister responsible for Parliamentary Service matters and therefore that matter will be dealt with in another context. I will just say though for the information of members that I tend not to rule or make any decisions until I have all the information available.
Power Simon: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General's Report 
Power Simon: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General's Report 
[Volume:633;Page:4829] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you for a considered ruling when the House resumes next week. The draft Auditor-General’s report into advertising expenditure in the 3 months before the 2005 general election has attached as appendix 1 an opinion from the Solicitor-General. In that opinion the Solicitor-General states: “The appropriations do not cover activities by members in their capacity as candidates for election.” and he goes on to say that the Parliamentary Service Act reinforces that view. As the House knows Madam Speaker the Solicitor-General states further that it is you who is responsible for the Parliamentary Service vote. Significantly the Solicitor-General finds further that the  
Members’ Handbook of Services  
notes that in the event that the vote-funded advertising material is determined to be in breach you have a discretion to require members or parties to reimburse the vote for those costs. In respect of those parties that have been found to have breached those rules and that have not repaid moneys owed to the vote I now ask you to exercise that discretion.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:633;Page:4829] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Not that I am aware of at this stage.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:633;Page:4829] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Perhaps the Leader of the House could advise Parliament whether it is his intention to introduce any retrospective legislation during this 4-week parliamentary sitting.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:633;Page:4829] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the KiwiSaver Bill the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) the Standards and Conformance Bill and the Employment Relations Amendment Bill.
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — John (Jack) Wallace Ridley QSO 
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — John (Jack) Wallace Ridley QSO 
[Volume:633;Page:4829] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 23 August 2006 of John (Jack) Wallace Ridley QSO who represented the electorate of Taupo from 1972 to 1975 and from 1978 to 1981. I desire on the behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General's Report 
Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General's Report 
[Volume:633;Page:4829] 
Points of Order 
Election Advertising—Auditor-General's Report 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you for a considered ruling when the House resumes next week. The draft Auditor-General’s report into advertising expenditure in the 3 months before the 2005 general election has attached as appendix 1 an opinion from the Solicitor-General. In that opinion the Solicitor-General states: “The appropriations do not cover activities by members in their capacity as candidates for election.” and he goes on to say that the Parliamentary Service Act reinforces that view. As the House knows Madam Speaker the Solicitor-General states further that it is you who is responsible for the Parliamentary Service vote. Significantly the Solicitor-General finds further that the  
Members’ Handbook of Services  
notes that in the event that the vote-funded advertising material is determined to be in breach you have a discretion to require members or parties to reimburse the vote for those costs. In respect of those parties that have been found to have breached those rules and that have not repaid moneys owed to the vote I now ask you to exercise that discretion. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is not a point of order of this House because in respect of the matters raised the role the Speaker has is that of Minister responsible for Parliamentary Service matters and therefore that matter will be dealt with in another context. I will just say though for the information of members that I tend not to rule or make any decisions until I have all the information available. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled. A new point of order is perfectly acceptable but I have ruled on that matter. 
SIMON POWER 
: I just wish to emphasise that although all information may not be to hand the Solicitor-General’s opinion as I understand it is in its final form and any assistance you would be able to give the House on the interpretation of that matter pursuant to the Parliamentary Service handbook would be helpful. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the matter. It is not a matter for the Speaker; it is a matter for the Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service which has a totally different capacity. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It may help this whole matter if you do prepare something for Tuesday just to explain the difference between being Speaker and being the Minister responsible. It might save a lot of trouble further down the track. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am quite happy to hold a seminar outside House time for those members who would find it interesting.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:633;Page:4829] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the KiwiSaver Bill the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) the Standards and Conformance Bill and the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Perhaps the Leader of the House could advise Parliament whether it is his intention to introduce any retrospective legislation during this 4-week parliamentary sitting. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Not that I am aware of at this stage.
Obituaries — John (Jack) Wallace Ridley QSO 
Obituaries — John (Jack) Wallace Ridley QSO 
[Volume:633;Page:4829] 
Thursday 24 August 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
John (Jack) Wallace Ridley QSO 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 23 August 2006 of John (Jack) Wallace Ridley QSO who represented the electorate of Taupo from 1972 to 1975 and from 1978 to 1981. I desire on the behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Choudhary Ashraf: Meat Board Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Meat Board Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4964] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call to acknowledge my colleagues across the Chamber and in particular the chairman of the Primary Production Committee the Hon David Carter. The committee works very well and I am delighted with his chairmanship. He has been a good chair. I also acknowledge my other colleagues opposite some of whom were my students actually. I am very pleased to say that they worked very closely on this legislation. 
This is a very small technical bill that clarifies issues around the allocation of meat quota to non-producers. Agriculture is very important. As has been said before it is the foundation of our economy. We have to make sure that we achieve efficiencies where possible and this bill is certainly an important step towards that so that we can sell every bone and piece of meat to the international market. Basically the bill clarifies the intent of the 2004 Act. I will stop there. I support the bill. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: KiwiSaver Bill — In Committee 
Vote: KiwiSaver Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4958] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Cosgrove Clayton: KiwiSaver Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: KiwiSaver Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4958] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Barnett Tim: KiwiSaver Bill — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: KiwiSaver Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4957] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Woolerton R Doug: KiwiSaver Bill — In Committee 
Woolerton R Doug: KiwiSaver Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4955] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the KiwiSaver Bill because we believe it is a genuine attempt to encourage saving in this country. Previous speakers have acknowledged that savings have fallen over a number of years and we believe it is appropriate that the Government is taking a lead in this role. We are also happy to see that the Government has had the wisdom through tax incentives to make it more encouraging for business people to commit their part of the contributions and to help them in some way. 
It is rather sad that National Party members are stonewalling on this issue. I believe they are doing it because of ideology. What I saw in the paper the other day about John Key was absolutely right: if the day ever came when National could take the Treasury benches—I cannot see that happening to be quite frank—I believe Mr Key would hang on to this KiwiSaver scheme. Even more than that I believe he would make it easier and just slam in a regime to make the scheme compulsory because I believe that that is where his heart lies. I believe that Mr Key having spent a lot of time in New York having made a lot of money and having come back to New Zealand with the express purpose of taking over the leadership of the National Party is in no mood to muck around with voluntary schemes. I believe he is on a path to power that means he will brook no opposition and I do not believe he would do that in a bill such as this. So I believe that in time this scheme will be compulsory—but perhaps not under the Labour Government which I applaud for having a voluntary scheme. 
We in New Zealand First also believe that if a Government does not take a lead the generations that follow will be behind the eight ball. What I am saying is that this scheme is not something that can be an instant success tomorrow. Sadly we have heard National members quote all sorts of sophisticated money schemes in other countries but this scheme is an attempt to change the psyche of New Zealand to one that is savings friendly. It is about getting mothers to encourage their children to save; it is about getting children to understand that this is something they take on for life—it is not something they can just put aside. That is why what I call the enhancements are important. There is an understanding that a mortgage is to be paid at some stage. There is an understanding that from time to time sadly people will need to take a contribution holiday. This bill allows for that. More important the bill accepts that the time has now come when messages from the Government are again important. I see that as being inherent in this bill and in there being a tax incentive for employers to contribute. So not only does New Zealand First support the KiwiSaver Bill but it does so enthusiastically.