edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2407] 
8.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What reports if any has he received about Government investment in research and development? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I have received reports showing that the Government’s investment in research and development has increased by 56 percent since 1999 to $600 million a year in Vote Research Science and Technology alone. The Government is also encouraging further public-private collaboration on research and development to assist the growth of New Zealand’s top exporting firms. An example of this is the programme I launched today called Express. This programme which has received over $2 million through the Foundation for Research Science and Technology will involve a number of leading information and communications technology industry partners including Telecom and a variety of universities in partnerships around information and communications technology and looks forward to the next generation in information and communications technology networks. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What other investments is the Government making to accelerate New Zealand’s economic transformation through science? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Last week I announced a $10.6 million grant to Tait Electronics. This was the first grant under the Technology for Business Growth strategic initiative which aims to support the growth of top export companies with a proven track record. This grant will help the company make the transition from analogue to digital radio technology and become a leader in this overseas market which is estimated to be worth $2 billion and is supported by such outstanding Canterbury MPs as Ruth Dyson.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2400] 
4.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What criteria would his Ministry follow were it to study a potential code-share agreement on trans-Tasman routes between Qantas and Air New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The criteria are specified in section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept the concerns of the Consumers Institute which believes that such an agreement would result in higher fares and fewer flights across the Tasman and will he assure the House that these concerns will be taken into account before the ministry considers the approval? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The concerns that the member raises are generically part of the list of criteria in section 9 but I would make the point that code sharing—nearly always—does not include price sharing. 
Darien Fenton 
: How prevalent are code-sharing agreements among international airlines? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: They are very common indeed. Successive New Zealand Governments have mandated the negotiation of provisions for code sharing and such provisions are included in most of New Zealand’s bilateral air services arrangements. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that when there was a code-sharing arrangement between Air New Zealand and Qantas in the early 1990s there was much frustration and dare I say anger from passengers who would book on one airline and be flown on another and they found that to be out of order with their booking arrangements; and will he assure the House that this will be taken into consideration? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am sure the ministry will take that into consideration. Let us not forget also that code-sharing arrangements are designed primarily to improve benefits to the consumers. For example it does mean that one can travel on one ticket on more flights across a greater spread during the day.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2398] 
2.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Has he received any reports on reactions to the interest-free student loan scheme which came into effect on 1 April 2006? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I have received many reports of positive reactions such as the one from the New Zealand Educational Institute which notes that the changes will help to keep new teachers in New Zealand and describes how one typical new teacher will save over $40000 over the life of his or her loan. 
Darren Hughes 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of reactions to the scheme that have led to changes in any policy settings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a report describing the changes as “the most irresponsible election bribe I can ever remember seeing” and another describing the scheme as “rushed and reckless”. But I have also seen a report stating: “Maybe we can leave the scheme as it is.” The first comment came from the leader of the National Party the second from its finance spokesperson and the third from its education spokesperson. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister agree with estimates by his own officials that the number of borrowers is forecast to rise by 27 percent over the next 3 years and with their estimates that the total amount of debt under his scheme will be greater than under the old scheme; if so why has he pursued a policy that deliberately increases student debt? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I released those numbers in December. They came from Treasury. Of course whether they are correct we will soon find out. It does not explain why when faced with people who support the policy that member said: “We may well keep it.” 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that preventing student debt has greater merit than merely making payments of debt more affordable; if so is the Government considering any initiatives to reduce the accumulation of student debt? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There are two main moves. One is better education of students about what they may or may not need. The second is improving the access to student allowances and continuing to work with parties such as United Future and New Zealand First in respect of that. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain how under his stewardship the student loan scheme managed to lose over 20000 borrowers who were overseas making no payments and running up huge penalties and why did the Inland Revenue Department lose track of over 20000 New Zealanders living overseas who have student loans? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Addressing the last part of the question I can tell the member that it is because in the past there has been no proper information-matching to ensure that when people move offshore that information is made available to the Inland Revenue Department. We will be moving to introduce that information matching to make that tracking possible.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Ministerial Responsibility—Questions for Oral Answer 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Ministerial Responsibility—Questions for Oral Answer 
[Volume:630;Page:2396] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I said to the previous member I think members should take time to consider the ruling I have given when they have an opportunity to do so. It is quite a long one. Also I do not see that any useful purpose can be served in anticipating hypothetical situations. When questions are asked and answers given I will rule on matters as they arise.
Carter John: Speaker’s Rulings — Ministerial Responsibility—Questions for Oral Answer 
Carter John: Speaker’s Rulings — Ministerial Responsibility—Questions for Oral Answer 
[Volume:630;Page:2396] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder then for the sake of clarity—because it now does become confusing in my mind and I suspect in the minds of a number of other members—whether you would at some time give us a considered opinion about when a Minister is actually a Minister. I had always thought that when Ministers made a comment or a statement they did so as Ministers. It seems now that we have some confusion as to when a Minister is a Minister because I had understood that Ministers were Ministers 24/7. If I am incorrect it would be very useful if you could help the House by giving us a view of when that is not the case.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Ministerial Responsibility—Questions for Oral Answer 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Ministerial Responsibility—Questions for Oral Answer 
[Volume:630;Page:2396] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I have made my ruling and the member could perhaps consider it further when there is an opportunity to do so. I do not intend to anticipate questions that might be asked in the future but I will endeavour to be consistent in terms of the ruling I have given.
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Ministerial Responsibility—Questions for Oral Answer 
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Ministerial Responsibility—Questions for Oral Answer 
[Volume:630;Page:2395] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There are really two points. Firstly do you accept that in that event you should have ruled Dr Smith’s question out of order and we might have avoided those circumstances? Do you recall also that the issue of Dover Samuel’s speaking as a councillor was made clear only when he answered the initial question in the House? 
Secondly is it now a reasonable defence for a Minister simply to say that he or she should have made a statement in some other capacity and therefore step outside the reach of the House’s right and responsibility to make inquiries when matters of public importance are seen to be exercised by a Minister?
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Ministerial Responsibility—Questions for Oral Answer 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Ministerial Responsibility—Questions for Oral Answer 
[Volume:630;Page:2395] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As requested I have given further consideration to a dispute that arose on 22 March regarding the capacity in which the Hon Dover Samuels had made a statement. The primary rule for questions for Ministers is that the question must relate to a matter for which there is ministerial responsibility. As Speaker Kidd stated in 1997 in Speaker’s ruling 139/3: “If there is no ministerial responsibility there can be no question. An opinion that is sought from a Minister must relate to a matter for which the Minister has responsibility.” If a Minister makes a comment on a matter for which the Minister has no ministerial responsibility—and it does happen from time to time—there can be no question to the Minister on that statement. If the subject matter of the statement falls within the responsibility of another Minister that other Minister can be asked a question on the statement. And of course the Prime Minister can be asked a question on the statement. There is nothing new in these propositions. 
In fact the initial supplementary question to Mr Samuels about the statement he made was allowed as it could conceivably have fallen within his area of responsibility as Associate Minister for Economic Development. When Mr Samuels was initially asked about his statement he did not say that he was speaking as a councillor; he said he was speaking from his experience as a councillor. So long as he was questioned on this basis and his replies were made on this basis I permitted questioning to continue. It was only when he introduced his actions as a councillor into the reply and then a member sought to question him in that capacity that I intervened. 
I reiterate: Ministers can be questioned only on matters for which they have responsibility. If they have made statements that impinge on those responsibilities they can be questioned on them regardless of the capacity in which the statements are made. I think that suitably worded questions could have been put to Mr Samuels last week on his statement.
Cullen Michael: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 23 March 
Cullen Michael: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 23 March 
[Volume:630;Page:2395] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 On Thursday 23 March in response to question for oral answer No. 7 I stated on behalf of the Prime Minister that there was no front-end damage to the Prime Minister’s car. That indeed was the advice at that point from Ministerial Services. I have subsequently been advised by Ministerial Services that this information was incorrect; the front bumper was dislodged from its mounts and received paint scratches a headlight surround was dislodged and a dent occurred at the left front of the bonnet.
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 23 March 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 23 March 
[Volume:630;Page:2395] 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 7 to Minister 23 March 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 On Thursday 23 March in response to question for oral answer No. 7 I stated on behalf of the Prime Minister that there was no front-end damage to the Prime Minister’s car. That indeed was the advice at that point from Ministerial Services. I have subsequently been advised by Ministerial Services that this information was incorrect; the front bumper was dislodged from its mounts and received paint scratches a headlight surround was dislodged and a dent occurred at the left front of the bonnet.
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:630;Page:2395] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House at its rising on Wednesday 5 April to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Thursday 6 April. This is in connection with the luncheon for the Chinese delegation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:630;Page:2395] 
Tuesday 4 April 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House at its rising on Wednesday 5 April to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Thursday 6 April. This is in connection with the luncheon for the Chinese delegation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Barker Rick: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Barker Rick: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2546] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This is straightforward legislation that will add the Supreme Court to the list of higher courts for which the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting will be responsible for preparing formal law reports. This is not as some Opposition spokespeople have said a major overhaul of our judicial system; nor was it ever intended to be. 
The Supreme Court is the highest appellate court and through all the appellate pathways has the ability to review the decisions of our courts across the full range of New Zealand law. Given the central importance of the Supreme Court the law reports will need to be of the highest quality. To achieve this standard the Council of Law Reporting has been consulting the judges in the Supreme Court and also the New Zealand Law Society to review the current practices and suggest possible improvements. A protocol has been agreed to ensure good practice. We are fortunate to have a number of specialist law reports covering a wide range of specific case law such as tax law family law and resource management law. This bill will also clarify the basis on which consent may be given by the New Zealand Law Society to enable specialist reporters to continue this valuable series. 
During the debate an issue was raised about reports on the Maori Land Court and the Maori Appellate Court. It is accepted by the Government that we have an inadequate series of reports in this area. I gave an assurance to the Committee of the whole House at that time that the Government was going to move on this. I want to repeat that assurance that within the next 6 months or so we will have a better structure for the Maori Appellate Court and approximately 12 months after that we will have a better series of reports for the Maori Land Court. 
In conclusion the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill will ensure the continued value and validity of New Zealand law reports by extending the responsibilities of the Council of Law Reporting to include reports on significant decisions of the Supreme Court. This bill is as simple and as straightforward as that and I commend it to the House.
Vote: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Vote: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2546] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 3 
Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a third time.
Brown Peter: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Brown Peter: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:630;Page:2535] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not want to take a long call by any means. [ 
Interruption 
] I thank my friend for saying that that was an excellent contribution! The member who has just resumed her seat spoke in quite some detail about how the Officers of Parliament Committee operated. But I would like to read the conclusion of the committee’s report which I think should be put on the  
Hansard 
 record. It states: “We acknowledge the high quality of the work done by the Officers of Parliament and the dedication and professionalism of their offices. The ‘parliamentary watchdog’ role is a vital one for a healthy democracy and we wish to see the officers appropriately resourced for their responsibilities.” Speaking on behalf of New Zealand First at least—but I think I am speaking for the whole Parliament—I say that we value the efforts of these people and we think they have done a darned good job over a long period of time. We would like to put that on the parliamentary record.
Maharey Steve: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Maharey Steve: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:630;Page:2533] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: I move  
That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2005-06 financial year in respect of Vote Audit and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the appropriations and information for the 2006-07 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and Offices of Parliament.  
The need for this motion arises from the special arrangements that Parliament has for dealing with the budgets of Offices of Parliament under the Public Finance Act 1989. Section 26E of that Act provides that before an appropriation in a vote administered by an Office of Parliament may be included in an appropriation bill for a financial year information must be submitted to the House on estimates of expenses capital expenditure and other matters. This procedure for presentation of an Address to the Governor-General reflects the relationship of Officers of Parliament as statutory persons separate from the executive to the legislature.
Maharey Steve: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Maharey Steve: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2533] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Local Government 
: I seek leave for the committee to 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 on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting despite Standing Orders 192 194(a) and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.
Carter David: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Carter David: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2533] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I seek leave that it be an instruction of the House to the committee that it consider Supplementary Order Paper 22 during its deliberations. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2533] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government Law Reform Bill be now read a first 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 first time. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Local Government 
: I move  
That the Local Government Law Reform Bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee and that the Committee report finally to the House on or before 12 June 2006. 
referred to Local Government and Environment Committee 
Motion agreed to.
Clarkson Bob: Points of Order — Tauranga Court Case—Payment 
Clarkson Bob: Points of Order — Tauranga Court Case—Payment 
[Volume:630;Page:2497] 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to clear something up. A few minutes ago I received a letter stating that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has paid up. It states generally that he has— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2493] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I apologise for not raising this matter earlier but I would like to give the Minister for Social Development and Employment an opportunity to correct his statement to the House. Earlier today Mr Benson-Pope in relation to my question as to why he was withholding the results of the review of 12 pilot programmes answered that he was not actually withholding any reports. I seek leave now to table two documents one a parliamentary question and the other a letter from Mr Benson-Pope declining on various bases to provide the report. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2485] 
6.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: When does he expect the single core benefit to be implemented? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I repeat the answer I have already given to the House today. Details of the new and simplified benefit structure including its name will be the subject of Cabinet decisions later in the year. 
Judith Collins 
: Do the Minister’s comments on March 31 that “while I can’t say that we will be delivering a single core benefit certainly the system is going to be hugely simplified.” indicate that Cabinet and this Minister are backing away from a single core benefit because it was is and always has been unworkable? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No. 
Judith Collins 
: Could the Minister tell us who is correct: the Prime Minister when she said in February last year: “Merging seven existing benefits into a single benefit would leave no one worse off.” or the Minister when he said just last week: “We are not prepared to say ‘Well sorry no one will be worse off.’ ”? Who is right the Minister or the Prime Minister? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I made it quite clear in my earlier answer that at the point of change for the introduction last Saturday there were no losers. 
Judith Collins 
: Why is he withholding the results of the review on the 12 pilot programmes? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am not withholding any information and I would say that the record of this Government on delivery of movement of people from benefits into the workforce is exemplary. 
Judith Collins 
: Why given Labour has worked on this concept since 1989 when Michael Cullen was the social welfare Minister is the Minister still unable to provide intelligible answers to either written or oral parliamentary questions? Why can he not just tell the truth? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. Would you please withdraw that comment. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I do not know which part of the word “No” to the earlier answer the member does not understand.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2484] 
5.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What are the reasons for participation by the New Zealand Defence Force in the Proliferation Security Initiative in Darwin? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 New Zealand is participating this week in an exercise called Pacific Protector which is designed to prevent the proliferation and movement of weapons of mass destruction. This is part of the New Zealand Government’s longstanding commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear chemical or biological weapons. The exercise involves like-minded countries working together to develop and test procedures to detect and interdict such weapons in a scenario where those weapons might be trans-shipped by air. 
Jill Pettis 
: Is the exercise consistent with international law and the position of the United Nations? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The exercise is consistent with our domestic law with international law and with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 adopted in 2004 on non-proliferation by non-State actors. That resolution calls on countries “to take cooperative action to prevent illicit trafficking in nuclear chemical or biological weapons their means of delivery and related materials;”. It is worth noting for the member that the Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan has commended the Proliferation Security Initiative for its contribution towards controlling proliferation.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Government Announcement—Media Embargo 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Government Announcement—Media Embargo 
[Volume:630;Page:2479] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is there not a question for the Speaker though about the appropriate use of mechanisms to prevent Parliament from discussing these things? This matter was so important that journalists had to be locked away to hear what the content of the announcement was. The embargo on it was not lifted until 4 minutes past 1 making sure that the House could not have its say on the matter. We of course all now get the report. It is incredibly bland absolutely barren of anything that is of great moment— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee you are repeating the same matter that I have ruled on. As the House is aware it is for the Government to decide when it releases its publications. It is also up to the Government when it utilises the ministerial statement provision. It is not a question for the Speaker. 
Question time resumed.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Government Announcement—Media Embargo 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Government Announcement—Media Embargo 
[Volume:630;Page:2479] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is a matter not for the Speaker but for the Government. As you said if it is a matter of urgency then obviously tomorrow you could make application for the matter to be heard as an urgent debate.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Government Announcement—Media Embargo 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Government Announcement—Media Embargo 
[Volume:630;Page:2479] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would have raised this matter at the start but we seemed to get under way fairly quickly today. This morning there was an announcement by the Government that was embargoed until 4 minutes past 1 which meant that it could not be referred to the House by the Opposition for urgent debate—although that could still be the case tomorrow. The moment obviously of importance in this report is reflected by the fact that there was a 2-hour lock-up we understand for the media. In these circumstances would you not expect the Government to make some sort of ministerial statement about the need to have such extraordinary security around what must be a very very important Government announcement?
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2479] 
1. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on the uptake of childcare assistance under Working for Families? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am advised that 1 year after the Working for Families childcare changes were introduced 30300 families with 36900 children were receiving childcare assistance. That is an incredible 29 percent more families receiving assistance since October 2004. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Has the Minister received any reports indicating how much better off people are as a result of these changes? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes. Data to the end of January 2006 shows that the average weekly payment to families receiving childcare assistance was $71 per week. I am also informed that 20 percent of the families receiving childcare assistance at the end of January this year would not have been eligible for any childcare assistance from the Government under the pre - Working for Families income thresholds. 
Judith Collins 
: How much taxpayer money has he spent so far in writing letters to and phoning people who clearly do not qualify for welfare and does he think that such a scattergun approach in providing welfare is a good use of taxpayers’ money? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes this Government is not focused just on developing good policy; it is also keen to make sure that people are only too aware of the opportunities they have. 
Question time interrupted.
Points of Order — Tauranga Court Case—Payment 
Points of Order — Tauranga Court Case—Payment 
[Volume:630;Page:2497] 
Points of Order 
Tauranga Court Case—Payment 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to clear something up. A few minutes ago I received a letter stating that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has paid up. It states generally that he has— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.
Points of Order — Government Announcement—Media Embargo 
Points of Order — Government Announcement—Media Embargo 
[Volume:630;Page:2479] 
Points of Order 
Government Announcement—Media Embargo 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would have raised this matter at the start but we seemed to get under way fairly quickly today. This morning there was an announcement by the Government that was embargoed until 4 minutes past 1 which meant that it could not be referred to the House by the Opposition for urgent debate—although that could still be the case tomorrow. The moment obviously of importance in this report is reflected by the fact that there was a 2-hour lock-up we understand for the media. In these circumstances would you not expect the Government to make some sort of ministerial statement about the need to have such extraordinary security around what must be a very very important Government announcement? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is a matter not for the Speaker but for the Government. As you said if it is a matter of urgency then obviously tomorrow you could make application for the matter to be heard as an urgent debate. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is there not a question for the Speaker though about the appropriate use of mechanisms to prevent Parliament from discussing these things? This matter was so important that journalists had to be locked away to hear what the content of the announcement was. The embargo on it was not lifted until 4 minutes past 1 making sure that the House could not have its say on the matter. We of course all now get the report. It is incredibly bland absolutely barren of anything that is of great moment— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee you are repeating the same matter that I have ruled on. As the House is aware it is for the Government to decide when it releases its publications. It is also up to the Government when it utilises the ministerial statement provision. It is not a question for the Speaker. 
Question time resumed.
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2479] 
Wednesday 5 April 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Working for Families Package—Childcare Assistance 
1. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on the uptake of childcare assistance under Working for Families? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am advised that 1 year after the Working for Families childcare changes were introduced 30300 families with 36900 children were receiving childcare assistance. That is an incredible 29 percent more families receiving assistance since October 2004. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Has the Minister received any reports indicating how much better off people are as a result of these changes? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes. Data to the end of January 2006 shows that the average weekly payment to families receiving childcare assistance was $71 per week. I am also informed that 20 percent of the families receiving childcare assistance at the end of January this year would not have been eligible for any childcare assistance from the Government under the pre - Working for Families income thresholds. 
Judith Collins 
: How much taxpayer money has he spent so far in writing letters to and phoning people who clearly do not qualify for welfare and does he think that such a scattergun approach in providing welfare is a good use of taxpayers’ money? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes this Government is not focused just on developing good policy; it is also keen to make sure that people are only too aware of the opportunities they have. 
Question time interrupted.
Carter Chris: Marine Reserves (Consultation with Stakeholders) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter Chris: Marine Reserves (Consultation with Stakeholders) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2761] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 The Government will support the Marine Reserves (Consultation with Stakeholders) Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker who is sponsoring the bill Eric Roy said New Zealand has a biologically rich and complex marine environment. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Sometimes members’ interjections are nice and witty. The accusation by “Mini Mike Moore” over there that I should be bouncing away in a bar is absolutely horrendous. I ask you Madam Assistant Speaker to get him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I realise I have just a couple of minutes to go. In 2 weeks’ time when the bill comes back I will be in Kiribati visiting the third-largest marine protected area in the world which was declared as such a few weeks ago by the Government of that Pacific Island State. 
Marine protection is something that all countries of the world with a coastline and marine area are absolutely passionate about. New Zealand has the world’s fourth-largest marine zone—a zone that is 15 times larger than our land area—and contained within that unique biological area are some 15000 species most of which are endemic to our region. It is absolutely critical that we protect them. Marine reserves provide one tool for doing that. 
Mr Roy is correct: the Marine Reserves Bill has been sitting with the Local Government and Environment Committee for a long time. I hope his bill which I support will stimulate progress on that legislation. There is a real opportunity for the consultative processes that he has incorporated into his bill to be weaved into the Marine Reserves Bill because the bills contain many similar provisions. Also of course the Government has declared its marine protected area strategy which I launched last year with the Minister of Fisheries. The strategy is all about creating an environment where key stakeholders—recreational fishers commercial fishers iwi local government and conservationists—work together to create just the sort of outcome that Mr Roy described in respect of Fiordland. 
Debate interrupted.
Blue Jackie: Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Blue Jackie: Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2759] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I would like to thank all members for their comments. I am grateful there appears to be support for this bill to go to the Health Committee. I thank the Minister the Hon Pete Hodgson for his input and I agree that we must get it right. The Health Committee must look overseas to find examples of how the legislation works. I believe the key will be a register that gives clarity education and teamwork and I agree with Steve Chadwick that Organ Donation New Zealand has started that process already. When I met with Steve in the street I was very impressed and very pleased to learn that that teamwork is happening in the intensive care units around New Zealand. 
I acknowledge Tariana Turia. I respect the Maori Party’s position and understand the cultural difficulties it has with donations from deceased donors. I am very pleased that as a result of this bill there has been discussion and debate with Ms Turia’s people and that Maori are now talking about live donation. I note in yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald  
that a Maori health worker Mr Phil Heremaia will go on the road in a bid to increase donor rates among Maori people and I think that is a very positive step. 
In conclusion I thank all members for their comments. The bill will be a challenge but it is one that the Health Committee must meet as we must find a way through this issue. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Health Committee.referred to Health Committee
Vote: Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2748] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.referred to Social Services Committee
Copeland Gordon: Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2746] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Firstly I would like to offer my congratulations to Maryan Street on having had her bill drawn from the ballot. I know from my experience in the last Parliament that it is always good to have one’s bills drawn. I had a couple drawn in the last Parliament one of which I might mention is an important constitutional bill to do with property rights. We are now just a few days away from the anniversary of the first reading of that bill and submissions have yet to be heard by the select committee so it could be a very long process. 
This bill raises a very interesting issue. I am a landlord and I insure the property that I let for my interest in it which is the replacement value of the property itself and also the value of those contents inside the property that are my property rather than the tenants’ property. Of course I expect the tenants to insure their own goods inside the house be they personal clothing furniture or whatever. I do that as a landlord because I want to protect my property in the event of it being accidentally destroyed by fire earthquake flood or whatever. 
This bill raises a new issue in respect of damage done to a property by a person who has only a peripheral if you like relationship with another joint tenant and who is not actually involved in any shape or form with the cause of the destruction of the property or its damage. For that reason I think it is good for this bill to go to a select committee and United Future will be supporting it going to a select committee. Like the Hon David Parker who has just resumed his seat we support this bill. By the way I would like to publicly congratulate David on his reinstatement to his various portfolios and I wish him well in those endeavours in the future. I have not had a chance to offer my congratulations to him personally because he was talking with the media at the time. I believe that the Hon David Parker has a lot to offer this country and this Parliament. 
United Future will support this bill going to a select committee and I hope that it will look carefully at the matters raised in relation to physical damage caused to a property. Under a normal tenant-landlord agreement that sort of damage should result in the tenant being expelled from the property. It would bring the tenancy itself to an end in any event under normal contractual arrangements and the landlord is free to pursue remedies against the tenant for that damage. This bill is about insurance. I think we need to keep those two things in mind and not mix them up—as I believe a couple of earlier speakers have done. 
With those few remarks I am happy to signal that United Future will vote to send this bill to the select committee.
Vote: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Vote: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2717] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Manfeild Park Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Power Simon: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Power Simon: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2716] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I move  
That the Manfeild Park Bill be now read a third time 
. Many of the arguments contained within this bill have been canvassed thoroughly in the second reading. I do not intend to delay the House any longer but I do want to say to the Maori Party members that I listened very closely to the concerns raised by them in both the first and second readings. I acknowledge that these matters are often difficult. 
I met with Dennis Emery on a couple of occasions and also spoke to him on the phone on a couple of occasions to try to progress some of the concerns of Ngati Kauwhata and of the iwi represented by him. But in the end the concerns raised by those iwi in the minds of the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee are best dealt with by the Waitangi Tribunal. In fact two claims currently sit before the Waitangi Tribunal to address the matters put to the House by the honourable Tariana Turia. I am not saying the select committee in any way sought or intended to undermine the rights of local iwi to have those claims heard in full. In fact it was my hope that the passage of this bill would assist them at the time the Waitangi Tribunal considers the two claims that are currently lodged before it. But it is not the role of the Local Government and Environment Committee nor is it the role of this bill to provide a decision on the merits or otherwise of the claims currently before the Waitangi Tribunal. It is my hope that the two iwi concerned with the matters contained in this bill will have an opportunity at the Waitangi Tribunal to put those claims in full and it is my genuine hope that they are resolved in a way that those local iwi will be happy with. 
This bill is designed to create a very scant and non-prescriptive answer to some concerns at law that were contained in the way property was held particularly by the Feilding Industrial Agricultural and Pastoral Association an association that is subject to its own legislation. This bill is the only legislative way to alleviate those concerns in a manner that would see this particular instrument provide the mechanism to allow the Manfeild Park Trust to exist in a way whereby the land would be made available according to the wishes and for the betterment of the wider Manawatu community.  
I thank those parties that have supported this bill. In particular as I said in the second reading I thank the Hon Steve Maharey for his support and the Government for its support. But I do not want to finish without acknowledging the very real concerns that have been expressed particularly by Tariana Turia in her contribution in the second reading. It is my hope that another forum will provide the answers to those questions. I thank the House for its support.
Vote: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Vote: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2716] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Manfeild Park Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Donnelly Brian: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Manfeild Park Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2713] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call. New Zealand First did not have a member on the Local Government and Environment Committee which looked at this bill but from a personal point of view I need only to look at the name of the person who promoted the bill to know that it will be pretty sensible legislation. That member Simon Power was on the select committee I chaired in the last Parliament and I have to say that he was a very very good member who made a tremendous contribution. I know that he would not put forward stupid legislation. Nevertheless New Zealand First would support the legislation anyhow because we think it is a sensible approach to the issue on behalf of the people of Feilding and its surrounding environments. 
After reading through the report back I compliment the select committee on its approach in firstly trimming the legislation to its bare necessities and secondly focusing on creating an enabling piece of legislation. I am sure that this legislation will improve the manner in which Manfeild Park can be operated. I have a brother-in-law who is a petrolhead and I am sure that he will take a keen interest in ensuring that that part of the park in terms of motor racing will be used in the best way possible. We in New Zealand First hope that the passage of this bill will enable Manfeild Park to be used to its fullest potential for the benefit of the people of Feilding in particular and also the wider community of New Zealand.