edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Horomia Parekura: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Horomia Parekura: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:11650] 
7. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Has he received any reports from Te Puni Kokiri on the benefits for Maori in having foreshore and seabed vested in “public space” rather than Crown ownership? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I have received advice from Te Puni Kokiri on various aspects of the proposed replacement regime for the Foreshore and Seabed Act including advice on different ownership options and how this new regime will restore the mana and dignity to Maori that was removed in the 2004 Act. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Does he agree with the Hon Tariana Turia who described vesting the foreshore and seabed in Crown ownership as confiscation; if so how is vesting it in public space any different from that—and is it outer space inner space or lost in space? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: There is a big difference between Crown ownership and non-ownership—a big difference. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Does he agree with MP Hone Harawira that the process being used is “bullshit” and pandering to the rednecks; if not why not? 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for members of our party and in that case that question is out of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need to hear any further on the matter. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. Traditionally members are able to ask Ministers whether they agree with the views of other people as long as the view that is being expressed is about a matter that is very much the Minister’s responsibility. If the matter is not the Minister’s responsibility then it is up to the Minister to tell the House that. Being asked whether he agrees with an opinion on a matter is I believe in order but the matter that the opinion relates to must be the Minister’s responsibility. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: No. 
Hone Harawira 
: Hoi ano e tu ana au kia whakatepungia te panui o te hikoi takutai moana mai i te tau 2004 me tona karanga ki te kawanatanga o Reipa kia kaua e pahi i te ture tahae takutai moana. 
[ 
I seek leave to table a notice regarding the foreshore and seabed march in 2004 that calls for the Labour Government not to pass the thieving foreshore bill. 
]  
Anei na taku panui. 
[ 
Here indeed is my notice. 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. I did not pick up the interpretation. 
Hone Harawira 
: Maku e whakapakehatia. I will translate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate that. 
Hone Harawira 
: I seek leave to table the pamphlet of the 2004 foreshore and seabed hikoi calling upon the Labour Government to withdraw its foreshore and seabed legislation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:11650] 
6. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What advice has she received about the management of parole by Department of Corrections since a highly critical report by the Auditor-General in 2009? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that significant progress has been made into the way that the Department of Corrections manages parole. Community Probation and Psychological Services has completed all 46 action points in a comprehensive improvement plan and recruited the extra staff funded in Budget 2009 specifically to improve the management of parole. It has also completed a major redesign of the way that parole is managed. This valuable progress will help to reduce the risk to public safety posed by people who have been released into the community on parole. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What other reports has the Minister received regarding improvements to Community Probation and Psychological Services? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Under the guidance of an expert panel Community Probation and Psychological Services has developed a 3-year change programme that will fundamentally change the way that all probation activities are undertaken not just parole activities. The framework identifies mandatory standards that must be met for every offender introduces the use of a new tool to assess the changing risk that an offender presents and provides staff with a decision framework to ensure that the right actions are taken with the right offender at the right time. It is now being phased in. The probation service is now back on track after years of under-investment by the previous Government which ran its services down to the ground.
Appropriation (2009/10 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Appropriation (2009/10 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11726] 
Appropriation (2009/10 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2009/10 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2009/10 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:664;Page:11726] 
Sittings of the House 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 We have made good progress today. I seek leave for the House to rise a little early. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action? It appears not.
Visitors — Australia—Environment and Resources Committee Queensland Legislative Assembly 
Visitors — Australia—Environment and Resources Committee Queensland Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:664;Page:11643] 
Tuesday 15 June 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Environment and Resources Committee Queensland Legislative Assembly 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Environment and Resources Committee of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland led by Mrs Carryn Sullivan MP is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the committee be welcomed.
Mallard Trevor: Budget Debate 
Mallard Trevor: Budget Debate 
[Volume:664;Page:11669] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I am a person who never corrects the  
Hansard 
. If I said that I said it. If I got the member wrong I apologise. But other than when someone does something like Mr John Carter did on one occasion I think the  
Hansard 
 should show what people said. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has apologised for getting Jacqui Dean’s name incorrect. I think that ends the matter.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Environment and Resources Committee Queensland Legislative Assembly 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Environment and Resources Committee Queensland Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:664;Page:11643] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Environment and Resources Committee of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland led by Mrs Carryn Sullivan MP is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the committee be welcomed.
Lee Melissa: Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Lee Melissa: Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11811] 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to speak for a very short time on the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill in support of my colleague Dr Jackie Blue who is sitting next to me. She is also my neighbour and colleague. We have offices on the same floor in Bowen House and she is also right next door in my neighbouring electorate of Mt Roskill as a National list MP and what a wonderful MP she is. It is a pleasure to rise to support this bill. 
This bill is about consumer rights and this Government is committed to promoting an environment where consumers—and all of us fit into that category—can make purchases knowing that our rights are protected. But it seems that our rights are not always protected as they should be. As in the example that Jackie gave at the beginning of this debate if one wins a competitive online auction from a professional seller such as the TradeMe online auction site we as consumers are not covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act. But if I hit the “Buy Now” button in the same online auction I am covered. That anomaly must be fixed. 
Debate interrupted.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11784] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to speak in opposition to this Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill. The reason I oppose it is that it reinstates the ban on the thermal generation of electricity that was enacted by the previous Labour Government in 2008. National as the incoming Government repealed that measure in December 2008. In a case of a bill such as this it is almost a waste of this House’s time and a waste of the energy of the people in the House. The Opposition is trying to reinstate legislation that was repealed by the current Government. 
If we look at the purpose of the bill we see that it intends to reduce the impact of fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generation on climate change by creating a preference for renewable electricity generation through the implementation of a 10-year restriction on new baseload fossil fuel and thermal electricity generation. In order to achieve that the bill makes the connection of new thermal generation plant above 10 megawatts for which an exemption has not been granted a criminal offence. 
I support all the reasons that the honourable Minister Nathan Guy has outlined in his speech as to why National members oppose this bill. It is quite simple: the ban is an unnecessary intervention in the electricity market. It is unnecessary because within the current framework—and we have supported the emissions trading scheme that the previous Labour Government had passed under its administration with some adjustments—environmental effects are taken into account through putting a price on carbon in the emissions trading scheme. We are proceeding with the emissions trading scheme and the price signals sent through that scheme incentivise renewable energy projects relative to the price of carbon. 
As Minister Nathan Guy has alluded this bill is a blunt and unnecessary instrument for the development of electricity in this country. The ban also puts the security of supply at risk. The Minister referred to the 2008 calendar year in which the levels of the hydro lakes were abnormally low. During that winter of discontent—and with the glimmer of hope in November 2008 when our Government took shape—over 50 percent of New Zealand’s electricity needs were provided by gas and coal plants. We have to bear that in mind. 
It is not only that but having a ban does not even create environmentally sound outcomes. The Minister again referred to the fact that a ban blocks investment in new generation that could displace more inefficient and more carbon-emitting existing generation. 
The ban also disincentivised oil and gas exploration. During the short time in which the previous legislation was in place petroleum explorers and investors shied away from New Zealand. We know that the public knows that the market knows that and this bill does not acknowledge that. 
I along with the honourable Minister oppose this bill. Thank you.
Vote: Local Electoral (Maori Representation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Local Electoral (Maori Representation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11805] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Electoral (Maori Representation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11793] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Goodhew Jo: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — First Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11779] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 Since the House has made excellent progress this afternoon I seek the leave of the House for us to rise for the dinner break now and resume again at 7.30. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: As this is a members’ day leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30. 
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Goodhew Jo: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — First Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11777] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to support the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill and I congratulate our colleague Eric Roy who I understand has been working on it since 2004. That just goes to show again that good things take time. In terms of looking at how there will be provision for even more visitors on Stewart Island / Rakiura this is in fact truly empowering and a way forward. The member speaking previous to this speech Phil Twyford mentioned 36000 visitors—that being an average I understand from about 2005 through to 2009. Of course it does not actually state the real case because it does not count the under-15-year-olds. They are such an important part of the visitor numbers to this island; those very important young people who get an understanding of the flora and fauna of this very special place. I say “special” but I say so without knowing so. More than 5 years ago I bid on a few nights on Stewart Island / Rakiura at a lodge. I still have the voucher sitting in the desk. I have been told that it will not expire. But in fact I will take my family there sometime soon. This bill seeks to move forward the provision of visitor services and to fund it in a truly appropriate manner. I commend it to the House.
Mallard Trevor: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11758] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can we just do something for the avoidance of all doubt? I seek leave that if there was an error in the member’s words that will not affect the motion at the end. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Righto. So if there has been a breach it will not affect the outcome. Leave is sought. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.
Woodhouse Michael: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — First Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11776] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise in support of my colleague and friend the very hard-working MP for Invercargill—the electorate that includes Stewart Island—and in support of this bill. In fact Ms Katene stole my thunder a little bit by her description of the original name of Stewart Island which translated means the anchor stone of Maui’s canoe. It is a lovely metaphor for the three islands in New Zealand with Te Wai Pounamu the South Island being the canoe; the North Island being the fish that Maui pulled in; and Stewart Island being the anchor. 
At the outset I have to confess that I have never—despite having lived most of my life just 200 kilometres north of Stewart Island—been over to it. I have viewed its magnificence from Bluff Hill and from some of the beaches around Invercargill but I am embarrassed to say that I have not actually made the journey—yet. I say “yet”; I promise to remedy that. Perhaps the member for Invercargill could consider leading a fact-finding delegation over to the island where such a visit might include sampling some of the many activities the island has to offer—purely for parliamentary purposes mind you; I am sure it would not be fun at all. But I certainly would not have any qualms about paying $5 extra for that privilege. 
I note Mr Parker’s caveat around the lack of a regulatory impact statement the care around the potential creep of levies and I acknowledge those concerns. They are concerns that I do not actually share. I have no problem with the application of a small levy; more important I do not think the tourists—domestic or international—have a problem with paying a small amount to visit these very special places in our country. But I accept that Mr Parker has a point around the issue of perhaps having a more coherent and consistent framework within which to apply these sorts of levies. 
He talked a little bit about whether this bill is the appropriate way to deal with the cost of infrastructure development that is needed to deal with rapid rises in tourism. For me the wonder of it all is not that the south has enjoyed such a huge growth in tourism but that it has taken 150 years for the rest of the world to cotton on to what we have always known: that the south of the South Island is one of the most beautiful parts of the world. I do not share those concerns but I agree that we may need to take a more holistic look at this issue from a regulatory perspective. 
The issue of the tourism revenue is also an interesting one because in fact the Crown enjoys the benefit of the tourism revenue through GST that is paid by international tourists and through the income tax that tourism operators pay on their taxable income. So local authorities do not have that benefit so much and I think this is a very pragmatic solution to that. With those words I congratulate Mr Roy and I commend the bill to the House.
McClay Todd: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
McClay Todd: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11766] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak today on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I thank the previous speaker not only for her kind words about the member of Parliament who has helped to bring the bill before the House but also for reminiscing about her days at Waikato University many years ago. I was fearful for a moment that she was going to ask the House to be allowed to make a personal explanation and I am glad that she did not because we all know what can happen in the heat of the moment when someone is studying very hard at Waikato University. 
The local member of Parliament for Hamilton East David Bennett is an excellent local MP. He is revered by the local people. I am told that in Hamilton they believe that he is not only intelligent but extremely hard-working and a real man of the people. It is important that we recognise the generosity of farmers in the Waikato particularly of dairy farmers. 
I was pleased to hear recognition from other speakers of the great generosity of the late George Parr who gifted this land to the people—indeed to the children—of Hamilton. David Bennett the local member of Parliament for Hamilton East in bringing this bill before the House today continues the spirit of generosity that the late George Parr set in place. It means that if this bill passes through the House and into law that piece of wonderful land beside the river in Hamilton will be there for the enjoyment of many many people—students and otherwise—for many years to come. 
I have had only one opportunity to visit this park and I found it to be quite a beautiful place. I say to Mr Bennett—and I know he has visited my electorate on many occasions—that it is probably not quite as beautiful as most places in the Rotorua electorate but it is stunning none the less. It is a pleasure to stand up and support a very hard-working member of Parliament who has brought a bill before us on behalf of all of the people who support it so very strongly in Hamilton. 
My last point is that I notice that the previous speaker said Lynne Moroney was just selected— 
Carol Beaumont 
: Sue. 
TODD McCLAY 
: Sue is it? Sorry I was not listening; I should pay much more attention. It was actually someone from the Hamilton electorate who told me her name was “Lynne” so they are confused there as well. I wish Ms Moroney the very best of luck. She will need a hell of a lot of luck to beat our great hard-working MP for that area. I support the bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Give us his name. 
TODD McCLAY 
: He is the man who is there working very hard at the moment. He is a very hard-working member of Parliament. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can’t remember his name. Doesn’t know who it is. 
TODD McCLAY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Everybody in this House and in the whole of the Waikato knows Tim Macindoe’s name. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order.
Upston Louise: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
Upston Louise: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11764] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand in the House along with other Waikato-based MPs to speak to the first reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It reminds me of another bill recently before the House which was also unanimously supported in its first reading. That was the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. It was similar legislation where with regard to an asset further assistance was provided to the local city council so it could better manage the facility. 
I first of all acknowledge the very hard-working local National member for Hamilton East David Bennett for bringing this bill before us in the House today. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes I could add a number of other descriptions but I only have 10 minutes and I do not want to take all of that time in adulation of one of my colleagues. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In view of the fact that there is widespread support for this bill and it is bipartisan and as the member did indicate that she would like 10 minutes I seek leave for her speech to be extended to 10 minutes if she so wishes without that time being taken from any other member. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will hear the member. Well actually the seeking of leave is not a point of order upon which there are additional contributions. I will put the leave. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? Yes there is. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: I will just say that this is obviously a bill that enables the local council to better manage one of its facilities. In this instance it is Parana Park and as many of the speakers before me have mentioned that park is a wonderful facility located in the middle of Hamilton City on the edge of the Waikato River. Like many of the members who have spoken before me I have had many occasions to share that wonderful playground and paddling pool with my children. 
I guess that one of the things I will say in response to one of the comments made by a previous speaker is that that park is no longer a dog-walking or exercising facility. That of course makes sense. If someone gifts land for the purpose of children’s enjoyment it does not make sense to use it as a dog-walking area. So that use no longer occurs because of the work the city council is doing. 
It is really important that we enable councils to do their jobs better on behalf of their constituents. In this case we are enabling the council to manage that particular park better and allowing the park to be vested in the city council as a recreational reserve. I hope that for many years many generations of Hamilton children and children across the Waikato will get to enjoy that park. Thank you.
Dean Jacqui: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — First Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11772] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I support the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill and I acknowledge the contribution of the previous speaker the Hon David Parker. I also acknowledge with thanks that the Labour Party will agree to this bill being referred to a select committee because I believe that it is a good bill. I think that the striking of a visitor levy is a method that could provide a very good solution to the infrastructure problems that the ratepayers who reside on Stewart Island face in terms of paying for the visitor industry. I also acknowledge the argument put forward by the Hon David Parker. He is right that a number of small communities all around New Zealand rely on incoming visitors for their economic well-being but their ratepayers bear the cost of providing that infrastructure. But I think there are several differences between them and Stewart Island and I want to point to those. 
One of those differences is that Stewart Island is a huge attraction to many New Zealanders and to people from across the world. There are only two ways to get there. One is by air and one is by sea. We can control the borders for those going on to Stewart Island so it seems to me that the striking of a levy would be equal across all visitors going to Stewart Island. As to whether the passing of this local bill would provide a precedent to other local authorities in New Zealand maybe it could. The question that I am certain the select committee will grapple with is whether this is necessarily a bad thing. So I raise those two points. I also know that the Chatham Islands are in a unique position in terms of funding for their infrastructure. Members who know more about this can correct me but I understand that there is empowering legislation that relates to the Chatham Islands for largely the same sort of sustainability reason. 
With those few comments I want to again thank the Labour Party for supporting this bill through to a select committee. I believe that it is a well-thought-out well-considered bill. I congratulate the local member Eric Roy on his long involvement with this and his working through the issue with the local communities to find a solution to this problem for Stewart Island. With those words I commend the bill to the House.
Boscawen John: Local Electoral (Maori Representation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Boscawen John: Local Electoral (Maori Representation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11800] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party will not be supporting the Local Electoral (Maori Representation) Amendment Bill.
Mallard Trevor: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11757] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is just a slight technical matter. The member referred on occasions to “we” with regard to the intention. I think the Standing Orders indicate that someone has to indicate his or her intention not his or her party’s intention. I seek leave for the references to “we” in the intention to move the bill to the select committee to be read as “I” in the member’s speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there anyone opposed to it?
Bennett David: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
Bennett David: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11758] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Originally I did say “I” for that first sentence. In that sentence I said that the bill was going to the Local Government and Environment Committee—that we would be moving it to that committee. I can check that in the Hansard to make sure that it is correct. That may be a solution that we can do.
Tremain Chris: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
Tremain Chris: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11757] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker I seek your guidance on this before we vote on it. Is the motion that the Hon Trevor Mallard moved necessary? Does it make a difference to the process that David Bennett has put here? If it is irrelevant then I do not think we need to vote on it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I have not done any homework on this particular issue it being one that has not been raised with me before. My perception is that it will not impact the overall final outcome. It is a technical matter. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes well if the member can direct me to an appropriate Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling. The member has the right to put the leave. I will put the leave. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? Yes there is objection.
Mallard Trevor: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11757] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I very respectfully want to disagree with you. It may be that that was what was provided to the member to say. He certainly said “I” at the beginning—I am not disputing that at all. I am disputing that he said “It is my intention” or “I intend to move this bill to a particular select committee.” He did not say that. I specifically listened for it to make sure that it was accurate. He may have been ad libbing and he may have got it slightly wrong. I think the Standing Orders are pretty clear that the member introducing the bill has to give his intention. I am still digging into him as to which one it is. I was trying to be helpful to the member and to get it right because as a former member for the electorate across the river and knowing the area relatively well I would hate to have this upset later on for lack of form. That is why I am trying to get it tidy now.
Mallard Trevor: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11757] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Just to correct the member I agree absolutely at the beginning that he said “I move”. But later on I think instead of saying “It is my intention” or “I intend to move” the member said “we”. I think it is a requirement of the Standing Orders to give the member introducing the bill’s view or intention clearly rather than other members’ intentions. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: At the outset the member did say “I intend that this bill goes to” so he fulfilled that requirement. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No he didn’t Mr Assistant Speaker. He said “we”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: At the very initial stage he said “I”. I am informed that that was what he said and I am prepared to accept that. In any case the motion that would do that has not yet been passed. If the bill goes through the first reading then the actual adequacy of the wording would be measured on the motion.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:11735] 
6. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What money was committed under the Community Response Model in Budget 2010? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 New money of $90.5 million is going to communities via the Community Response Model. It is based on the same model as the Community Response Fund and is about letting communities decide for themselves what does and does not work. 
Chester Borrows 
: How will the Community Response Model get better outcomes for families? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: For too long the Government based in Wellington has imposed its solutions on communities. National believes in local solutions to local problems hence the Community Response Model will also include making decisions about the current spend of the $110 million family and community services group funding. 
Chester Borrows 
: How will the Community Response Model forums ensure communities have their say? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We said it and we meant it. What works in Tokoroa is quite different from what might work in Timaru or Wanganui as the member knows. No longer will we dictate from above. We trust communities. The Community Response Model will have local people and local officials on it. 
Hon Annette King 
: When she said the Community Response Fund was for high priority services did she include the Barnardos family centre in Mangere which this week was advised that six of its workers are to be made redundant and that this vital service to families in South Auckland is to be closed; and if this service is not a high priority what are the requirements to meet her criteria? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The member was not clear why the Barnardos family centre is being closed or whether it is because of the Community Response Fund. I am not aware of why Barnardos in Mangere might be closing. The reality is that Barnardos has all sorts of different ideas and different ways that it runs its organisation and we certainly trust it to do that.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:11738] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave for this question to start again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:11738] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Acting Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the House. This question was set down for me as Acting Minister and I was slightly distracted. I apologise and I am happy to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet at the moment. I must say that this is the first time I have seen this occur in my 26 years in Parliament. If the member was going to seek leave for something helpful to happen that would be—but by the look on the member’s face I am not sure—
Beaumont Carol: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beaumont Carol: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:11738] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question has been on notice and I directly quoted from the Minister so I am sure she has considered it.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:11738] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 On behalf of the Minister she has not considered that in detail.
Beaumont Carol: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beaumont Carol: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:11738] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Consumer Affairs and asks: “What evidence from the experience of the many other countries who use interest rate caps does she have to support her conclusion that interest rate caps are ‘not a viable solution’ to the problem of fringe lending?”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does some Minister intend to answer the question? [ 
Interruption 
] I call the Hon Bill English.
Bennett David: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
Bennett David: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11757] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When I moved this bill I did read “I move that the Hamilton City Council” in that first line. I may have used “we” later in the speech but the first line which is the appropriate one I did say “I”.
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:11738] 
10. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Government’s Housing Innovation Fund? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Recently I announced another six projects that will receive just under $8 million from the fund. These projects will help provide 20 new properties in Queenstown and eight new properties in Nelson. Another four projects will benefit Maori directly with 44 new properties to be built in Northland Tauranga and Whakatane through the Maori Demonstration Partnerships. 
Todd McClay 
: What is the aim of the Housing Innovation Fund? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The idea of the fund is to encourage partnerships with community housing organisations where the taxpayer fronts up with some cash and so do the community housing organisations. To date this programme has helped fund 169 new houses with the Government giving $20 million and the community $40 million. So for every dollar the taxpayers put in the communities put in $2 and we have 169 new houses. It is a brilliant fund.
Sio Su'a William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sio Su'a William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:11737] 
9. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
 to the  
Minister of Pacific Island Affairs 
: Which individuals representing the Pacific Economic Development Agency in addition to J R Pereira has she met with since becoming Minister? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) 
: 
 I am pleased and proud to say that in the course of my ministerial duties I have met with many representatives of Pacific communities in fact hundreds around the country. To the best of my knowledge the only representative of the Pacific Economic Development Agency I have met is Mr J R Pereira. Other representatives of that organisation may or may not have been present at one or some of the many functions that I have attended. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Did she discuss with Mr J R Pereira Mr Ulu Aiono Mr Ulafala Aiavao or Mr Mose Saitala a Budget appropriation for the Pacific community; if so when? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: To the best of my knowledge leaving aside the three other people the member has mentioned I have not discussed any Budget proposal with any of those individuals. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Which individual members of the Pacific community in Auckland did she meet to discuss an appropriation from Budget 2010 for the Pacific Economic Development Agency? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: None. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Was she present when Mr Bill English met with Mr J R Pereira and representatives of the Pacific Economic Development Agency prior to and immediately after the 2008 general election; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: No I was not present. If not it was probably because I was doing something else—possibly attending another Pacific function which is what happens.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:11737] 
8. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What progress has the Government made on streamlining trans-Tasman travel? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 We have made absolutely excellent progress. Yesterday at Wellington International Airport I officially launched the SmartGate automated border clearance processing system for holders of New Zealand and Australian passports. This is the second New Zealand— 
Hon Annette King 
: Where was my invitation? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Annette King keeps calling out and asking where her invitation was. I can tell the member that I checked and she got one yet not one Labour member came and for that I am sorry. 
Hon Annette King 
: No. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That member got an invitation; I checked. This is the second New Zealand international airport to install the SmartGate system after it was launched for passengers arriving at Auckland. The system has made arrival processing much quicker and easier. A survey found that 94 percent of all people surveyed rated SmartGate as either nine out of 10 or 10 out of 10. 
David Bennett 
: What reports has he received on the performance of the SmartGate system at Auckland Airport? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The good news keeps coming. The SmartGate system at Auckland Airport has absolutely outperformed everyone’s expectation. It has enjoyed a rapid uptake by travellers with around 50 percent of eligible New Zealand passport holders now using it. More than 190000 people have been processed through it. The average time for processing a passenger through the electronic SmartGate is 22 seconds—22 seconds. It is fantastic. Auckland Airport has achieved this level of uptake in just its first 4 months of operation; it took Australian airports more than 4 years to get to the same level.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:11736] 
7. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by the statement in her blog about Gifted Awareness Week that gifted and talented students are “often overlooked as the attention of parents politicians and teaching professionals is often drawn to students who are getting into trouble or underachieving”; if so what is she doing about it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Yes. The Ministry of Education is currently working with three providers to ensure continued improvement for gifted and talented students. The ministry is developing a range of online tools to support teachers so they can plan effective learning programmes for those students and they can be easily integrated into the classroom. The Associate Minister of Education the Hon Heather Roy has also established an independent advisory group to provide her with independent advice about how to incorporate international best evidence into provision for gifted and talented students in New Zealand. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does she agree with the Education Review Office’s assertion in its 2008 report on gifted education that schools providing well for their gifted learners have had ongoing in-depth professional development support; if so why has the advisory and professional learning support for teachers in gifted and talented education been cut? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The steps I outlined in answer to the substantive question are the steps that the Associate Minister and the ministry have taken in response to the Education Review Office report which said that about 50 percent of schools were found to be either somewhat or not appropriate or responsive in their provision for gifted and talented students. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of her concern about gifted and talented students being overlooked why do the national standards not acknowledge students who are well above the standard as they acknowledge those who are well below it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is one of the reasons why the Associate Minister has moved to make some changes in the support of gifted and talented students. It is important that those changes are integrated with national standards. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question. The question part of it asked why the national standards do not acknowledge students who are well above standard when they acknowledge those well below standard. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must say I thought the Acting Minister of Education in answering on behalf of the Associate Minister said that changes were being made to the national standards policy to meet the needs of gifted students. I thought that was exactly what the Minister said in his answer.
Barker Rick: Appropriation (2009/10 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2010/11) Bill — Second Readings 
Barker Rick: Appropriation (2009/10 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2010/11) Bill — Second Readings 
[Volume:664;Page:11919] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: There are two amendments and those amendments have to be put first before we come to the substantive motion. The first is an amendment moved by Trevor Mallard to an amendment.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:664;Page:11940] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday 23 June and on Thursday 24 June 2010 and for questions to be lodged in the normal manner pursuant to Standing Order 372 notwithstanding the fact that the House is in urgency. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:664;Page:11940] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11939] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.
Vote: Appropriation (2009/10 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2010/11) Bill — Second Readings 
Vote: Appropriation (2009/10 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2010/11) Bill — Second Readings 
[Volume:664;Page:11919] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the words after “That” be omitted and the following substituted: “this House has no confidence in the National Government because these Supplementary Estimates fail to redress the underlying problems and omissions from Budget 2009 which remain uncorrected by Budget 2010 namely the triple deficit of grossly inadequate national savings made worse by the halving of KiwiSaver incentives and the indefinite deferral of New Zealand Superannuation pre-funding; a deep persistent and dangerous current account deficit driven by a growing net investment imbalance and a financial sector that is almost entirely foreign owned; and an innovation deficit made worse by scrapping the research and development tax credits and the Fast Forward Fund; resulting in increasing reliance on commodity trade that is highly exposed to price fluctuations.” 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.