edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bennett David: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Bennett David: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17996] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I first of all congratulate you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson on your reappointment to the position. I must admit that you are one of those people in this House whom everybody finds very easy to get along with and you are a tremendous servant for this country and for the people of your electorate. Well done on your recognition in that role. I think it shows the esteem that you are held in by all members of this House as somebody they can get along with and enjoy the company of. Congratulations. 
Jonathan Young 
: That’s enough. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: That is enough is it? But he is a good guy. We are discussing the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) this morning. A number of members have talked about it and said that it covers a lot of minor changes and technical amendments that are necessary in certain bills. One part of it that I will focus on this morning is in regard to the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act 1981. The change in this bill enables nine directors to be appointed to the New Zealand Railways Corporation board instead of the current number of seven. The number of directors of a board is an issue that has been debated a lot in recent years as people look at having boards that are more effective and not too large but that represent a variation of views skills and experience. That number of nine directors is seen as about right for a large-scale board with a large budget such as this one. Its budget basically involves the corporation investing $4.6 billion in assets in its 10-year turn-round plan in which this Government has invested heavily in rail—$750 million investment in rail—to make sure that we get this corporation running effectively and delivering to all New Zealanders. That change is important in the sense that it will give that board extra strength so that we can deliver on that investment—that vital infrastructure investment in our rail network—going forward. This Government has invested in that to the future benefit of all New Zealanders. We look forward to that board achieving its goals in the very near future. 
I support this bill which covers a variety of amendments to a variety of Acts. Some of those amendments are minor and technical and some of them are very important like the Railways Corporation amendment which delivers real benefits to New Zealand. I once again congratulate you Ross on your appointment. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17989] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Sat sri akaal. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. First of all I congratulate you on your appointment as Assistant Speaker. 
It is my privilege to speak on the first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill is an omnibus bill that amends a number of different Acts. It amends 20 different statutes including the Wills Act which relates to the signing of wills witnesses and the validity of the documents. The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) also amends the Charities Act 2005 the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act the Companies Act the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act and the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act. The bill also includes updates and definitions will be clarified and simplified for most aspects of these bills. I commend this bill to the House.
Carter John: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter John: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17981] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Law and Order Committeeconsider the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 8 August 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c) 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17978] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I will start my contribution with the point raised by the Hon Rick Barker that jury service should be taken as a civic duty and not an obligation. In my opinion it should be taken as an opportunity to participate in the judicial system without one having to be a lawyer. I know someone who once served as a juror and since then she has been encouraging others to go and participate. Participation gives us the opportunity to know about the judicial system and it is very interesting. 
The Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill gives protection to members of a jury. The bill includes amendments whose purpose is to improve the jury system’s integrity or to help to maintain jurors’ privacy safety and security. These amendments prevent certain people from serving as jurors if at any time within the preceding 5 years they have been sentenced to home detention. 
The bill empowers the registrar to excuse permanently from jury service people with chronic ill health and permanent disability. The most important aspect of this bill is to protect more rigorously the safety of jurors. Their addresses particularly should be protected. The George Baker case has highlighted the need to further contain access to information. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I look forward to participating in the select committee process. 
Since National has taken over it has introduced many pieces of legislation to ensure that law and order can be improved. Latest statistics are telling us that there has been a huge decrease in the crime rate all over New Zealand. If we talk in percentages the crime rate has fallen by 6.5 percent and if we talk about Counties-Manukau the crime rate has been reduced by more than 9 percent. It is important that we protect our front-line police and prison officers from any harm being done to them. 
This Government is working hard to ensure that law and order is maintained at the utmost level. I commend the bill to the House.
Bridges Simon: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17975] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I have been involved in the selection of many many juries. The way it works is that the Crown or the defence gets to challenge without cause six potential jurors. This is Chester Borrows’ reference to what they are wearing. It is true that to some extent one will make an assessment of the person as they walk up to the jury box; once they have sat down that is it. As a prosecutor one will also have some reference to perhaps their previous convictions. If it is a sexual charge and the potential juror has offending of that pedigree one would think about that and probably challenge them. Lawyers have six challenges; in multi-accused trials they have 12—whether one is defence or Crown. 
I will tell members the one rule that all Crown and defence lawyers know; Steve Chadwick’s husband knows this. I will bring this secret out into the open today in this House. It is a rule that all counsel in all jury trials follow: never ever—ever—have a teacher on a jury. Never ever have a teacher on a jury. If one thinks of Trevor Mallard or maybe Kelvin Davis one might have some sense of why that is the case. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Too busy. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: No it is because they think they know it all. They have been used to lecturing and talking down to children for a very long time. Their minds are not malleable they will not listen to decent arguments and they jump to conclusions. I have just exposed that secret in relation to the selection of jurors. It is something that the Crown and the defence follow. 
The Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill is an excellent bill which will protect more stringently jurors’ addresses and particulars and will help maintain privacy safety and security. I thought about this bill when I saw this headline in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this week: “$10m drug kingpin guilty”. That was a jury trial. One can understand quite quickly in a case like that why people would have very strong and reasonable reservations about their addresses being known by an accused. In a case like that so much is up for grabs. Underworlds can be involved in terms of the witnesses and certainly the accused who will stop at literally nothing to get off the charge. So we are doing something here to strongly protect jurors. 
Jurors do get squeamish. There can be issues understandably with the serious cases. It takes only one or two to feel those pressures acutely for a trial to have to be stopped and started again and for there to be delays—at a huge cost to the taxpayer if one is doing that sort of thing. This bill gets around that. If for that reason alone this is an excellent bill. I hear the comments made by other members about things that could be in it but what it does is sufficient to justify it as a good bill before this House.
Vote: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17967] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party (Sharples) 1; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party (Flavell Katene Turia) 3; Independent: Harawira. 
Bill read a first time.
Tremain Chris: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tremain Chris: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17966] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the member needs to seek leave because I do not believe that all the slots are gone. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No all the slots are gone. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Oh are they? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Yes they are. If the member wants a call she has to seek leave so I will put leave for her to speak for 6 minutes. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? Leave is opposed. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye the contrary No. The Ayes have it. [ 
Interruption 
] No any single member can oppose the leave. Leave was opposed. I am now putting the question. I think members lost track of what I was doing. I will restate the question.
Katene Rahui: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Katene Rahui: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17966] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I seek leave to take a call on the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. I realise that all of the slots have been taken. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Would the member like to determine the time—is it a 10-minute call the member is seeking? 
RAHUI KATENE 
: It is about 6 minutes.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:18018] 
5. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What has caused the $402 million legal aid funding gap? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Two-thirds of the $402 million gap which will emerge over 5 years from 2010-11 stems from decisions made in 2006 to extend eligibility for legal aid and in 2008 to increase lawyer remuneration. To be blunt those changes were completely unaffordable and unsustainable then and they are even more so now. 
Chester Borrows 
: What steps is the Government taking to close this gap? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Among other measures we are changing legal aid eligibility purchasing approaches revenue collection and court-ordered lawyer for the child services. I want to make it absolutely clear that none of these changes will affect cases involving vulnerable parties the care and protection of children or serious criminal matters. The changes will be implemented in 2011-12 and are expected to reduce legal aid expenditure by $138 million over 4 years. The changes are necessary to bring the legal aid growth curve back under control while preserving access to justice for those who need it the most.
Vote: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18053] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1. 
Noes 79 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 23: 
23ASection 11 amended 
Section 11 is repealed and the following section substituted: 
“11Drivers not to exceed specified alcohol limits 
“A person may not drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle while— 
“(a)the proportion of alcohol in the person’s breath as ascertained by an evidential breath test subsequently undergone by the person under section 69 exceeds 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath; or 
“(b)the proportion of alcohol in the person’s blood as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen subsequently taken from the person under section 72 or section 73 exceeds 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.”
Goudie Sandra: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17984] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). I commend the Associate Minister of Justice for bringing it to the House. 
In all the work we do the housekeeping has to go on; the previous speaker the Hon David Parker clearly does not understand that. I am disappointed that he said that this bill has no substance then followed that statement up by saying how good it was that the amendments to the Wills Act was going ahead; it had been previously unable to when introduced in an earlier Statutes Amendment Bill. He was quite hypocritical in saying there was no substance then saying there was some substance— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member used a word directed to a member on this side of the House that was unparliamentary. She accused the member of being hypocritical. I think the member should withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes; the member cannot use those phrases. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I am happy to withdraw and apologise. 
As I said the previous speaker talked about the bill having no substance and then said that he was pleased to see that the amendments to the Wills Act were taking place. I was quite intrigued by that contradiction of terms and sentiment. 
I am delighted that we are making these amendments to these Acts because we have to do the housekeeping required for legislation. That is why I support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).
Vote: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18054] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 23: 
23BSection 56 repealed 
“56Contravention of specified breath or blood-alcohol limit 
“(1)A person commits an offence if the person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road while the proportion of alcohol in the person’s breath as ascertained by an evidential breath test subsequently undergone by the person under section 69 exceeds 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. 
“(2)A person commits an offence if the person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road while the proportion of alcohol in the person’s blood as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen subsequently taken from the person under section 72 or section 73 exceeds 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.”
Collins Judith: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Collins Judith: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17967] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Law and Order Committeeconsider the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 15 August 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18054] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on this part includes schedules 1 to 3.
Goodhew Jo: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17823] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bennett Paula: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Bennett Paula: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17821] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Services Committeeconsider the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 May 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17821] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a first time.
Borrows Chester: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Borrows Chester: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17821] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I support the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3).
Macindoe Tim: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Macindoe Tim: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17818] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 It is always a pleasure to follow the loquacious Dr Prasad in debates in this House. We need to remember that the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) is a fairly straightforward and necessary measure. It is designed to restore fairness and equity within our system for paying student accommodation allowances and accident compensation. I say to the member that it is good to hear yet again that Opposition members will support the bill but I am puzzled—as I have been so often in my time as a member of this House—that the Opposition members say they will support a bill but then everything they say in debate appears to oppose it. 
I say to members opposite that it is no wonder New Zealanders have absolutely no idea what Labour currently stands for. It is also very apparent why Labour is becoming less and less relevant to the New Zealand public with each passing day. To give members one example—and it is worth pointing it out—the member for Mangere Su’a William Sio professed to be deeply concerned about the cost of petrol at the moment for New Zealand consumers. I am sure we all are concerned; it is at a high level. But of course he failed to point out that the cost of petrol at the moment has still not reached the level it did in 2008 under the previous Labour Government. It is very curious to hear a member saying how outraged he is at the cost of something and that it is unaffordable when in fact it is cheaper than it was when his party was in Government. 
This measure responds to inequities and it overcomes unfairness. As Dr Prasad has just said there are very good reasons for promoting it so I simply say to that member and to all members opposite: let us stop talking about it and let us get on and do it.
Shanks Katrina: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17812] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I did not realise we were in a general debate. The Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) is actually a very very narrow bill and I do not quite know how adult and community education fits into it how GST fits into it and how voluntary membership of students associations fits into it. It is actually a very very narrow bill so I think that member Jacinda Ardern got a lot of latitude in the speech she has just given. It will be interesting when we get to the Social Services Committee to discuss the issues that are relevant to this bill. I know there may be a wider debate that goes on within the Labour team amongst themselves but I am sure we will be able to keep to the bill itself when we get to the select committee. 
This is an interesting bill. It addresses just two things. It addresses loopholes in the Social Security Act and it addresses two areas only. One area is in relation to some students who receive accommodation support. Basically the bill makes it clear that students are not eligible for the accommodation supplement if they could receive assistance under the Student Allowances Regulations but choose not to apply for it. The bill closes a loophole. It is interesting that the member said she was unsure about what the differences were between the accommodation supplement and assistance provided under the Student Allowances Regulations. Actually it did not take me very long to get on the phone ring up and find that out before I got up here to speak tonight. There is very little difference in the maximum value of those two forms of assistance towards accommodation costs but it is actually extremely hard to get the maximum amount. Someone has to meet a whole lot of conditions in order to claim the maximum amount. 
You know I would say not a huge number of students are claiming the accommodation supplement because it would not really be to their benefit to do so. But I think it is really important that we get legislation right. This bill just shows us that when we make legislation we have to be really wary that we do not create loopholes and that when we find loopholes we have to ensure that we close them pretty quickly. 
The bill’s second main provision clarifies that weekly accident compensation includes weekly compensation regardless of whether it is paid by ACC or an accredited employer. Once again this is just a little loophole in the current Act which means that it does not include weekly payments when they are made by accredited employers. A recent Social Security Appeal Authority decision confirmed this. The past and the current Ministry of Social Development practice is that compensation payments are deducted whether they are made by accredited employers or by ACC. This bill will validate the past and current practice of deducting payments dollar for dollar from benefit payments. 
I have taken just a short call tonight and I look forward to debating this bill vigorously in the select committee later on. Thank you.
McClay Todd: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
McClay Todd: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17816] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to rise and speak on the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). I will start by thanking the extremely hard-working Minister Paula Bennett for bringing this bill to the House. I particularly enjoyed her speech introducing it and very much look forward to the bill coming to our Social Services Committee where we can seek the wider views of the public on this issue. 
I will touch on just a couple of points. I have had a chance to read the bill. I understand it and I think that it is doing a number of things that are important. I am glad to hear that others in this House are going to support it. Mr Su’a William Sio who spoke earlier spoke of many things and at one stage he was waving a piece of paper and saying that when this bill went out for consultation others would be concerned and would throw it in the bin. The problem with that was that it was not the bill he was holding; it was his speech. So I agree with him. I am sure that many others out there would throw that speech in the rubbish bin although we have some important work to do. 
The point I really want to make is that this bill is about anomalies and closing loopholes. That is why I am sure that Labour members will support this bill all the way through. It was not so long ago that we heard the Leader of the Opposition say in public that he would give a $5000 tax break to all New Zealanders—their first $5000 of income would be tax-free—and that he would pay for that by closing loopholes. So I guess that this was one of the loopholes he was talking about; it would not go anywhere close to paying for that promise that he will not be able to deliver on. 
It is important that as a Government and as a Parliament we come together to make sure that those outside this place are treated fairly and I believe that this bill does that. As I said I look forward to dealing with it when it comes to our committee and I look forward to seeking the views of the public who Mr Sio said would have thrown his speech in the bin. Thank you.
Vote: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17808] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Henare Tau: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Henare Tau: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17804] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Kia ora. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson and congratulations on your elevation to your old position. My advice to Labour members is to sit down get out of the way shut up and let us do our job. That is all those members need to do: be quiet— 
Kelvin Davis 
: Build the waka build the “Tupper-waka”. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is right—No. 1 waka jumper and proud of it. In fact they are building a monument this very day and I am very proud of that. 
I am glad that Mr Shearer got up and spoke so eloquently. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No you’re not. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well I am. The great pity of it all is that not one member of the last Labour administration spoke as eloquently as that member did and that is a shame. National will do the work that is required and we will put in the hard yards that are required. I absolutely support these measures.
Davis Kelvin: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Davis Kelvin: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17821] 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 It seems like only a month ago that we were last debating this bill and we got to the riveting stage of debating the title. If I recall correctly there was intense debate and discussion over the inclusion of the letter “h” in Whanganui. We spoke about the whole debate that occurred on whether Whanganui should be called “Whanganui” or “Wanganui”. 
I also raised the issue that up north back in the 1800s the “wh” in Maori words was offensive to the ears of the missionaries. They did not like words such as “whakarongo” because of the first couple of syllables of words like that. What they tried to get us to do up there—or so I am told by an esteemed kaumatua in Ngati Hine—was to stop saying the “f” sound. They wanted us to pronounce a word such as “whakarongo” as “hakarongo” by dropping the “w” in that word. It is interesting to note that in the Treaty of Waitangi the word “whenua” spelt with wh” and pronounced as “f” actually has the “h” dropped out of it. Instead it is pronounced “w’enua” which is similar to the way it is pronounced by the Hon Tariana Turia. That is just an interesting little part of the whole debate on this bill’s title. 
The other interesting Maori word in the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill is the word “Kaitoke”. “Kai” as most New Zealanders will know means to eat or it means food; “toke” is the Maori word for “worms”. I hazard a guess that there is a very interesting legend or story around the way that Kaitoke got its name. No doubt it is about somebody eating or having a feed on a whole heap of worms but actually I should not guess because I am not from there and it is not for me to invent the history of another iwi. 
Certainly there has been a lot of debate on the Maori words and Maori names in this bill. We recall the angst of a group of children from Otaki School who dared to challenge Michael Laws and his stance on the letter “h” being included in Whanganui. He did not want the “h” in Whanganui. In his opinion Whanganui should be Wanganui.
Quinn Paul: Legal Services Bill — Third Reading 
Quinn Paul: Legal Services Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17789] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I note that the “three strikes” legislation has nothing to do with the Legal Services Bill. Jacinda Ardern was outside the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings  
by referring to it given that third readings are about summing up the process and focusing on the principles of the bill as Jacinda will see on page 117 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. 
I will start my contribution to this debate by joining my colleague Kanwaljit Bakshi in acknowledging the new senior Labour whip. I congratulate Mr Barker although I hope he is not quite as successful as Kanwaljit was proposing. I have noticed that Mr Robertson has been appointed Assistant Speaker only temporarily until the end of this week and I look forward to Mr Barker resuming the Chair next week given the contribution and leadership he shows in the House which I enjoy. 
Simon Bridges 
: What was all that about? 
PAUL QUINN 
: Do not worry; Rick and I work out in the gym. I join the other speakers on the bill who have already alluded to the origins of the bill which came out of the Dame Margaret Bazley review. Although structural and substantive changes are proposed in the bill I will focus principally in this contribution on the strategic intent of the bill rather than on its structural issues. 
The starting point is that we must recognise that at some stage in any organisation or process complacency becomes embedded and the systems used and the focus shown are not in keeping with the service that is needed and demanded. As a consequence the bill is very timely in order to update the processes. 
I am pleased to join most of the speakers who have contributed to the debate. I agree with Jacinda Ardern’s contribution particularly in terms of preferred lawyers. She covered her points very well. There was also a very good contribution from David Parker— 
Simon Bridges 
: What about mine? 
PAUL QUINN 
: —and from Simon and Kanwaljit. They were all excellent contributions. There is really nothing further I can add. I along with my colleagues have great pleasure in endorsing the bill.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:17756] 
11. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How have the 1 April changes provided greater certainty to those receiving benefits and New Zealand Superannuation? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 This Government has locked the annual general adjustment into legislation to give those who rely on benefits and superannuation real certainty. Last week all main benefits increased by 3.75 percent to reflect the increases in the CPI. 
Chester Borrows 
: Has there been any increase to assistance for people caring for children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes the annual increase was to foster care allowances as well and that was also locked into legislation. Assistance has also increased for the 11500 people caring for children and receiving the unsupported child benefit. 
Hon Annette King 
: If older New Zealanders are feeling more certain about their future after the 1 April change why is Grey Power in its latest magazine saying: “The Government is more interested in its big dividends from power companies than the health and welfare of its citizens many who cannot afford to turn heaters on in the winter. There are more and more people in poverty.”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: When it comes to superannuitants this Government is very proud of the differences we have made to money in their pockets. Since October 2008 the married rate of New Zealand superannuation has increased from $439.80 per person a fortnight to $522.96—an increase of $83.16 or 18 percent. 
Hon Annette King 
: I would like to table the Grey Power newsletter which is not available to everyone in order that people might like to see it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Are you a qualified member? 
Hon Annette King 
: You are though. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say both to the Hon Dr Nick Smith and to the Hon Annette King that I was on my feet. I accept though that the first fault was with the Hon Dr Nick Smith. We do not need to table newsletters that are commonly available for people.
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:17753] 
8. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has she received regarding the building of schools at Hobsonville Point? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am pleased to say that I have received a number of reports. These have included reports on the need for new schools at Hobsonville Point and a detailed business case for public-private partnerships. This has led the Government to decide that the two new schools at Hobsonville Point will be designed built and maintained under a public-private partnership. The new primary and secondary schools at Hobsonville Point north-west of Auckland subject to satisfactory bids will be the first New Zealand schools built under a public-private partnership. The new primary school is scheduled to open at the start of 2013 and the secondary school is due to open at the start of 2014. 
Allan Peachey 
: What are the main benefits of building these schools under a public-private partnership arrangement? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Although the financial savings in this case are expected to be relatively small overseas experience shows that the appropriate use of public-private partnerships does deliver a range of wider benefits including new design financing and maintenance techniques. The private sector partner will be responsible for that financing and for building the property and maintaining it for 25 years of school operations. That means that schools and boards can focus more on teaching and learning without the added responsibility of managing the property. 
Allan Peachey 
: How will the public-private partnership arrangements work? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Very well. The land and school will still be owned by the Government of course and the board of trustees will remain wholly in charge of the governance and the day-to-day running of the school. But the private sector partner will develop the buildings and carry the risk for problems like leaky buildings. A single establishment board of trustees has been appointed to oversee and assist the process in setting up the new schools and the board will be briefed on public-private partnerships and will work closely with the Ministry of Education throughout the process. 
Sue Moroney 
: How much corporate profit will the Minister allow the private partner to make out of the taxpayer-funded Hobsonville schools which are being built in the very area where the Prime Minister cancelled the building of State houses because he did not want them in his electorate? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Probably about the same amount they will get out of building them in the first place.
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:17744] 
2. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Have after-tax average weekly earnings been rising faster than inflation; if so what are the implications for rates of New Zealand Superannuation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes as measured by the quarterly employment survey after-tax weekly earnings rose 6.8 percent last year. That is significantly greater than annual inflation of 4 percent. This has implications for superannuation rates under Section 16 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act which as I recall was passed by the previous Government. The fact that after-tax earnings have risen significantly faster than inflation means that superannuation rates get an extra increase on 1 April this year. That extra increase was necessary to maintain the married couple rate of 66 percent of after-tax weekly earnings which are rising significantly faster than inflation. 
Craig Foss 
: By how much did superannuation rates rise on 1 April 2011? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There are a number of different rates of superannuation but to use the total married couple rate per fortnight from 1 April this went up per person by $11.90 a fortnight. Over a quarter of this is due to the fact that after-tax earnings have risen significantly faster than inflation. That of course is not a political assertion; that is a matter of fact according to the measures agreed by this Parliament over the last 20 years and reconfirmed by the previous Government when it passed a new Act in 2001. So the increases in national superannuation prove beyond doubt that after-tax earnings in New Zealand are rising faster than inflation. 
Craig Foss 
: Were superannuation rates accurately and permanently increased for the effects of raising GST? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes between 1 October 2010 and 1 April 2011 superannuitants received a special 6-month payment to compensate them in advance of the normal cycle for the rise in GST. From 1 April onwards the normal inflation adjustment including the GST impact has taken over so there is no longer any need for a special payment. Superannuitants can be assured that the increase in national superannuation on 1 April fully compensates them for GST and that it is ongoing and permanent. 
Craig Foss 
: How do recent increases in superannuation rates compare with those in the past? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I mentioned the increase in the married couple rate per person since 1 April 2008 is actually now $83 a fortnight. This works out as a real increase of 8.5 percent in national superannuation over the last 3 years and a significant cause of that has been the reduction in tax rates and the increase in the after-tax wage beyond the increase in inflation. Just by comparison the superannuation rate went up by 8.5 percent in real terms under the previous Government but it took 9 years to increase by as much as that.
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Correction—Legal Services Bill 
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Correction—Legal Services Bill 
[Volume:671;Page:17742] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The results of the vote on the question on the amendment in the name of Rahui Katene as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 to schedule 1 of the Legal Services Bill was incorrectly announced as Ayes 48 Noes 64. The correct result is Ayes 49 Noes 64. The record will be corrected.
Locke Keith: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
Locke Keith: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
[Volume:671;Page:17741] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the statement of the Minister the Hon Simon Power. We would like more information though. Repeatedly when these renewals are made we get just general words about the situation having not yet been stabilised. A little bit more elaboration I think would benefit the House—for example the Minister could say in the areas of getting rid of silt or getting the power back on that there have been advances that do not require the national state of emergency but that in other areas progress is still being made and the national state of emergency is still required. I think more elaboration would be useful for the House.
Power Simon: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
Power Simon: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
[Volume:671;Page:17741] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: I intend to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 347 advising the House of the extension of the state of national emergency. Today the Minister has further extended the duration of the state of national emergency in Christchurch City under section 71 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. As members know section 66 of the Act states: “The Minister must advise the House of Representatives as soon as practicable” of an extension hence the statement yesterday applied to the extension declared on 31 March. Today’s declaration by the Minister is the seventh extension of the state of national emergency that applies specifically to Christchurch City since it was first declared on 23 February. The extensions are necessary to enable the national controller to continue exercising his powers and functions under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. 
Although the situation in Christchurch City has improved significantly in the 6 weeks since the earthquake of 22 February the city has not been stabilised sufficiently to change the status of this state of national emergency and therefore the Minister considers it necessary to keep the state of national emergency in place. The earthquake response is of such a magnitude that the civil defence emergency management required is beyond the capacity of the regional civil defence emergency management group. I am advised there is strong support in Christchurch for the state of emergency to be national rather than local or regional at this time. This provides the national controller with powers to access resources from around New Zealand but only for the purpose of responding to the earthquake in Christchurch City. The state of national emergency will be lifted when the Minister is satisfied that the situation has stabilised sufficiently and the powers available through the state of national emergency are no longer required.
Smith Lockwood: Resignations — Hon Darren Hughes Labour 
Smith Lockwood: Resignations — Hon Darren Hughes Labour 
[Volume:671;Page:17741] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Darren Hughes resigning his seat in the House with effect at the close of Tuesday 5 April 2011.
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:17746] 
4. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received in relation to the number of doctors and nurses working for New Zealand’s district health boards? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise that we are making good progress in protecting and growing the public health service. I have been advised that in the 2 years since the change of Government the number of nurses working for our district health boards has increased by over 1000 and the number of doctors by over 500. Retaining and growing the health workforce is a great challenge facing our public health service. The challenge will continue as demand for better access to services grows as our population ages and the international demand for health professionals further intensifies. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What other reports has he seen in relation to improving New Zealanders’ access to trained health professionals? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have previously reported to the House that the Government’s new voluntary bonding scheme has attracted 1400 medical nurse and midwifery graduates into specialities and locations where we need more of them. I am pleased to confirm that the Government has expanded this year’s voluntary bonding scheme to include nurse graduates if they choose to work in the specialities of mental health and aged care. Not only have these specialities been added but they have also been made a priority for the voluntary bonding scheme. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can the Minister confirm that it takes at least 6 years to train a doctor and 3 years to train a nurse and will he show his trademark humility and generosity and give credit for that to the person who is actually responsible for increasing the number of medical staff—the Hon Annette King? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No. I do not like to harp on the past. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table the latest available data from the Medical Council of New Zealand that indicates that there are 320 extra doctors not more than 500 as the Minister said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.