edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:662;Page:10401] 
10. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Did the Government inform Maori Television that he was flying to New York to speak to the UN; if so on what date? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Maori Television was briefed in confidence on Friday 9 April 2010 to enable it to send a reporter and a camera operator to New York in time for the announcement. 
David Garrett 
: Did the Prime Minister advise him before his trip to New York that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would have “no effect whatsoever”; if so how does he justify the secrecy and expense of the trip? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: It was very clear what the parameters of the declaration were. There was no secrecy to the Minister’s going to New York. The Prime Minister signalled very early last year that this matter would be on the agenda this year. There has been no secrecy. 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific: did the Prime Minister advise him that the declaration would have “no effect whatsoever” which was a direct quote from the Prime Minister. It was not about the contents of the document which was the subject of the answer given on the Minister’s behalf. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I recollect correctly that was not the question the member asked at all. I seem to recollect there was another hunk to the question and that was what Minister Turia chose to focus on in her answer. That is the thing: if members want a particular point to be covered in an answer they must not add more because that enables the Minister to latch on to the bit they did not particularly want to be focused on. I believe that the Minister adequately answered the question. 
David Garrett 
: Will he be advising Tuhoe that as the Prime Minister stated the declaration he signed in New York will have “no effect whatsoever” and that they—Tuhoe—are mistaken in citing the declaration in their claim to ownership of Te Urewera National Park? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: It is very clear that this declaration must fall within the parameters of New Zealand law and within the Treaty obligations that have been agreed between the Crown and Maori people and that is also how the Tuhoe decision will be made. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Was it his intention to travel all the way to New York to as the Maori Party says sign the declaration or was he as the National Government says going over there just to affirm it and which of these affirmations or declarations will help the most to reduce Maori prison numbers and unemployment and increase Maori educational achievement? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: It was appropriate for the Government to make its first statement publicly to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues as it was the setting in which much of the declaration was negotiated.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:662;Page:10400] 
8. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture 
: What announcements has he recently made regarding research into recreational fishing? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced the largest study of recreational fishing in a decade. It will commence this year it will cost about $5 million over a number of years and the results will greatly improve our understanding of how many people are fishing diving and gathering shellfish where they fish and how much they are catching. It will give information that will enable me to set better catch limits. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What other research on recreational fishing is planned? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: From 1 October this year recreational charter fishing-boat operators will also start reporting how often they go fishing and how much of a particular high-value species of fish their clients are catching. These research and reporting projects will combine to give us the most comprehensive picture of recreational fishing in New Zealand that we have ever had.
Quinn Paul: Head of State Referenda Bill — First Reading 
Quinn Paul: Head of State Referenda Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10380] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I think it is appropriate that all of us recognise that people hold different views on republicanism and I think we should respect that. I have been disappointed in listening to the debate so far from the Labour benches. Charles Chauvel’s view is that if people are not republican they are wrong full stop. Phil Twyford talks about this matter progressing under stealth. Who is progressing matters under stealth? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Show some spine! 
PAUL QUINN 
: I am happy to go into a rugby game against you Trevor. Gareth Hughes talked about plucking up the courage. 
I back my spine against the member’s any day he wants on the rugby paddock or anywhere. The member should not worry about that. My own view on this is driven by the issues raised by the Maori Party member’s contribution—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that interjections are allowed but a constant barrage of yelling and screaming is against Standing Orders. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If the member responds as he did then the rules are very clear that members can respond. If the member had ignored it he may have had a point and if he was in his own seat he would have another one. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I remind the member interjecting not to use the word “lies”. He mentioned it a couple of times. I ask members to keep the noise down. Interjections are fine but continual barracking is not. If I cannot hear then the level is too high. 
PAUL QUINN 
: In respect of my own view first and foremost— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You’ve got a very good view from Roseneath. 
PAUL QUINN 
: If the member listened he might hear it. First and foremost I personally believe that there is not an urgent and pressing desire by the community at large and the public at large to have this debate right now. Therefore I am not persuaded that we should do it just for the sake of it. But more specifically I do not proclaim to be an expert on tikanga Maori. My contribution to progressing and advancing Maori causes—my skill sets—are in other areas and I do not profess to be an expert in tikanga. What I can say is that my koroua and my kuia hold very dear the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi that their ancestors signed was a pact between them and the Crown. It is their wish to hold the Crown to account in respect of the Treaty of Waitangi. I take my guidance from that. I pay my respect to my father to his father and to his father before that; because they are the people who have been responsible for trying to advance in partnership with the Crown the cause of Maori. For that reason alone I will uphold that desire of theirs. Thank you.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:662;Page:10323] 
11. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What changes is the Government making to the legal aid system? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Earlier this month I announced a comprehensive reform of legal aid services following on from Dame Margaret Bazley’s report on this area. New Zealand’s new legal aid system will include a new quality assurance framework for legal aid lawyers improvements to the duty lawyer scheme and an expansion of the Public Defence Service to Wellington Christchurch and Hamilton. I am confident this package of reforms will improve access to justice and help build the public’s confidence in the legal aid system. 
Chester Borrows 
: What reports has the Minister seen on his recent announcement about changes to the legal aid system? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I have seen a report from the New Zealand Law Society which has welcomed the streamlining of administration relating to grants of legal aid and the extension of the Public Defence Service. The president of the Auckland District Law Society has also welcomed the changes stating “The society supports any efforts to improve access to justice for disadvantaged members of the public unable to afford the services of a lawyer.” I have also seen reports that the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Lianne Dalziel have described the changes as “useful” and “a good thing”. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Has he met with the members of the Manukau legal profession who had their reputations damaged as a result of Dame Margaret Bazley’s report as he indicated to the House he would in December last year; if so has he been reassured of the integrity of the overwhelming majority of those lawyers and their ongoing commitment to report those who are not meeting the high standards required of the Bar? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: As I said at the time I am happy to meet the members of the Manukau Bar. I have just checked with my office in the last 15 minutes. To date I have not received an invitation or a request to meet them.
Goodhew Jo: International Treaty Examinations — Agreement Between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Republic of Singapore for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income—Consideration of Report of Finance and Expenditure Committee; Reports — Alterations to the 2009/10 Appropriations for Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and 2010/11 Draft Budgets for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General the Office of the Ombudsmen and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—Consideration of Report of Officers of Parliament Committee; Sittings of the House 
Goodhew Jo: International Treaty Examinations — Agreement Between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Republic of Singapore for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income—Consideration of Report of Finance and Expenditure Committee; Reports — Alterations to the 2009/10 Appropriations for Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and 2010/11 Draft Budgets for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General the Office of the Ombudsmen and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—Consideration of Report of Officers of Parliament Committee; Sittings of the House 
[Volume:662;Page:10387] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
:  
We have made even more progress now and I again seek leave of the House for us to adjourn for the day. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Vote: Head of State Referenda Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Head of State Referenda Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10384] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the Head of State Referenda Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; United Future 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Kedgley Sue: Head of State Referenda Bill — First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Head of State Referenda Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10382] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I happen to be a huge fan of Prince Charles. I could even say he is one of my heroes and why would he not be? He is against genetic engineering—passionately against it—he is in favour of organic farming he is in favour of using natural therapies and he is opposed to ugly architecture. I could go on and on. I am a huge fan of Prince Charles but I am not in the least a fan of having him as our head of State if one day he becomes the King. 
It is ludicrous that we in New Zealand are seriously submitting ourselves—as we will be if the Head of State Referenda Bill is defeated tonight—to for ever having a faraway hereditary head of State. It is completely ludicrous. I believe that Prince Charles is embarrassed at the concept of being the head of State of New Zealand—he has said as much. It is ridiculous. Every now and then the head of State comes to New Zealand pays us a little visit and rather awkwardly wanders around New Zealand. The head of State feels as uncomfortable as we do about having an ancient hereditary monarchy as head of State of New Zealand. It is completely ludicrous. 
I realise that there are issues that need to be worked through particularly with tangata whenua and the relationship between the Crown and Maori. But I find it rather depressing to hear the Maori Party say that it will oppose even debating this issue because of its relationship with the Crown. Does that mean that we as New Zealanders are forever doomed to have a hereditary faraway monarch living on the other side of the Earth as our head of State because of the Treaty relationship? Keith Locke has addressed that issue. Those sorts of issues should be being debated in a select committee. 
I find it tragic that National is vetoing even having a debate on this issue. Frankly the National members’ interventions were half-hearted and completely lacking in conviction. Most of them did not take a call. One member spoke for about 30 seconds; the other Simon Bridges clearly did not believe in it. His heart was not in it. He was given orders by his leader to oppose the bill. We know that many National members support having a republic but they are simply forced like cannon fodder to vote against the bill because for some reason the Government is afraid of this debate. Why is the House afraid of debating these issues? What is there to be afraid of? Frankly the refusal to debate this issue is a tragic reflection of New Zealand’s lack of genuine independence. How can our nation be proudly independent if a faraway monarch on the other side of the Earth is our head of State? It is completely ridiculous. I find it offensive and a growing number of New Zealanders do too. They will find it offensive that this Parliament will not allow even a debate on this important issue. The House is shutting down debate. What is the House afraid of? Where is the free speech in this country? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has 5 minutes in reply.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Head of State Referenda Bill — First Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Head of State Referenda Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10377] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 National will be opposing the Head of State Referenda Bill. Within our communities there are people who hold strong views both for and against New Zealand becoming a republic. 
The present system is working very well. The head of State is the British monarch and the Governor-General is appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister. There seems to be not much public support for New Zealand becoming a republic. At another time New Zealand may look more seriously at becoming a republic. A referendum is a very expensive exercise and holding such a referendum during such hard times does not seem to be sensible. There are more critical issues before the country that need to be focused on like creating jobs economic growth and creating safer communities for New Zealanders. 
This bill provides for the holding of two referendums to reconsider the matter of New Zealand’s head of State. If the majority of the votes in the referendum are for the proposal to retain the present head of the State there will be no further referendum. If not the two options receiving the highest number of votes will be subject to a final binding referendum. I oppose this bill.
Vote: Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10373] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10372] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The rules of this House are very clear that members have to vote in the first instance before they can call a division. No one said Aye for this bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that no one whom the member might have heard said Aye but we cannot be sure who might have whispered or what have you. When a member calls for a party vote as Speaker I have to respect that the member wants to exercise his or her right to see a vote taken.
Henare Tau: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Henare Tau: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10360] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I am absolutely overawed with the 100 percent support that my bill will achieve tonight. It is something that has not happened for a long time. It is a very moving part of my parliamentary career. I will not say much. I could say a lot about the criticisms that have come my way from some people but let us not ruin the moment. Let us all bask in the glory of the unification of this House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Woodhouse Michael: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10360] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I want to take just a quick call in support of this bill. I think that we may have unanimity on the bill although I was not quite sure where the Greens were coming from. 
I want to touch on a point that Ms Moroney made about employers standing over union members. In my experience in the health sector that has occurred but so too there have been union members standing over other employees influencing their decisions and coercing them into supporting industrial action when the financial consequences on their families may be greater than the benefits of striking. 
One of the other things I was surprised to learn was that although we quote ILO conventions quite frequently the right to strike is not set out in the ILO conventions and recommendations. A number of documents do set out the conditions for the right to strike and they include the obligation to take strike decisions by secret ballot. So in introducing this bill we are lining up our legislation with that noble cause and for that reason I support the bill.
Harawira Hone: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Harawira Hone: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10357] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. The Maori Party supports the right of workers to be treated fairly and with dignity and we support their right to a safe and healthy workplace. 
We are keen to hear what workers think about the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill which requires unions to hold a secret ballot before undertaking strike action. We understand that the Council of Trade Unions has said it would support the bill because that is what is happening in the workplace anyway but we have also heard that the Service and Food Workers Union does not support the bill and that it has criticised the Council of Trade Unions over this issue. 
We have some concerns but we will support this bill at its first reading to ensure that it goes to a select committee for a wider consideration of the submissions from affected parties and because Tau Henare said I had to. Kia ora tatou.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10354] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave for what the House is about to agree to to be incorporated in the first reading speech of the Hon Tau Henare. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Henare Tau: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Henare Tau: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10354] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I intend at the appropriate time to move that this bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10354] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think what the member is trying to do—and I will be helpful—is to seek leave to indicate which committee he will move the bill to at the appropriate time.
Henare Tau: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Henare Tau: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10354] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 During my euphoria I forgot to mention which select committee I was going to send the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill to. I seek leave to move— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for this purpose. Is there any objection?
Bennett David: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bennett David: Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10354] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is gives me great pleasure to support my very good colleague Tau Henare. He was once a union organiser and he has a particular interest in workers’ rights. For many years he has been advocate for those who need assistance. The Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill is part of his delivering legislation to the House for the people of New Zealand. This member’s bill will assist workers and given them the democratic rights that he knows they deserve. As a result of his very good experience in that field we see this solid legislation coming through from a good member of the House who has an impeccable record and a future in this institution. He is also a good member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. If the bill gets through its first reading it will go to that great committee and we will endeavour to look at all options including those put forward by Labour to see what can be done to make this legislation the best it can possibly be in the circumstances. 
Basically the bill gives fairness and equity to people in a ballot situation so they can have secrecy in making their decisions without feeling pressured in any way. That is crucial in a vital decision such as whether to undertake a strike action because not only is it possible that one might get some kind of pressure from colleagues but also there is the potential pressure from those outside of the group who would be looking at the strike. It is important to have that secrecy so people can make a fair and independent decision because making the call to go on strike is a big decision. It can affect the livelihoods of many families and many businesses can suffer dramatically from strike action. It is not an easy decision in any circumstance. If we can make that decision as fair and as equitable as possible at the time then I think that is in the best interests for everyone. It is important to make the proper decision one that is reflective of the circumstances not one that has been pressured on to people for any other ulterior motive. 
I congratulate my colleague Tau Henare on bringing this legislation before the House. It is something that the select committee will take a great deal of interest in and we will work tirelessly to make sure we have the best legislation coming forward to the House for future readings. It is in the best interests of New Zealand workers our business community and our industrial relations to pass this bill. I commend it to the House and I wish my colleague all the best as we progress it through the House.
Vote: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10351] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Bill read a first time.  
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 64 Noes 58. 
Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.
Bridges Simon: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10347] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Every so often Parliament gets to debate questions of pure principle. The issue here is whether serving prisoners should have the right to vote. My answer at a principled level is absolutely not. Some would say that voting is not a right it is a privilege. I disagree. It is a right; it is a fundamental right but it is not an absolute right. In fact if we consider all the rights we like to think of they never are absolute. 
But with all rights even with fundamental ones go responsibilities. If we like we can put it this way: there is a social contract between individuals and the State. The State makes the rules. It compulsorily takes taxes and does all manner of things. In return we receive all sorts of things: warm shelter sometimes hospitals schools and of course the power of the ballot to elect or “unelect” and in our privileged case in this House to be elected. Prisoners however have opted out of that social contract. They have not gone just against the State’s and society’s basic rules they have gone against the big ones which means that incarceration has resulted. 
A central debate here concerns the matter of how easily imprisonment is imposed. I say to members from experience that it is not imposed easily at all. In this country we do not take away someone’s right to liberty and imprison them at all lightly. Indeed the previous Labour Government increased the many sentence options that judges now have and that they must consider before a person is incarcerated. There is a spectrum and a wide one at that of offences before we get to the most serious penalties in our system of imprisonment. 
Moreover the right to vote is not just a fundamental one; it is a precious one. Millions of men and women have shed blood and lost their lives for the right to vote. I simplify to some extent but I say that arguably any war we like to think of that New Zealand has been involved in has been fought in the name of among other things democracy. I am certainly not saying to this House that all wars are right. Indeed often they are fundamentally misguided. Nevertheless as I say to some extent they are in the name of democracy. 
My grandfather fought in a world war but did he do that so that serving prisoners could vote? Voting is a fundamental right but it is also a precious one. By committing serious crime prisoners opt out of the social contract between citizens and the State and they lose the right to vote. When they have served their time and they are out they can re-enter society. They can regain their precious right that hard-earned with blood shed right to vote. That is how it should be. This bill in principle is the right thing to do. I commend it to the House.
Quinn Paul: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Quinn Paul: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10339] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 In the remaining time I have I want to address the report of the Attorney-General in respect of this bill. In so doing I preface my remarks by saying that the Attorney-General is a man of great integrity courage and enormous intellect. He may prove to be one of New Zealand’s finest as time passes. Certainly he is the best Attorney-General we have had in the last 10 years. But like all good Celtic Catholic men there are times when we agree to disagree. In paragraph 11 of his report he says that the bill appears to suggest that anyone sentenced to any period of imprisonment is a serious offender. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I wouldn’t actually refer to Celtic Catholic men at the moment. 
PAUL QUINN 
: I say to Lianne Dalziel that in paragraph 12 he goes on to claim that the above statement is questionable and that non-serious offenders will be disenfranchised; for example fines defaulters. 
What the report leaves unstated is that the only reason fines defaulters end up in prison is because they refuse to pay their fines. A former Minister the Hon Rick Barker answered a question for oral answer on behalf of the then Minister of Corrections and said that the number of offenders being given custodial sentences in lieu of fines reflected the importance the Government puts on offenders being held to account for their actions and that a custodial sentence is obviously a harsh sentence for serious fines defaulters. The simple fact is that terms of imprisonment are imposed for some offences that one might consider minor but people are not imprisoned for those offences unless they become serious such as not paying on a serial basis fines that are due. One might say that there are many people who have committed serious crimes— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member’s time has expired but he does get a reply. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Is that right? We look forward to the debate.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:662;Page:10322] 
10. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What advice has he received on those who are likely to be disadvantaged by recently announced policies regarding tertiary education with respect to student loans allowances and course fees? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I have received a range of advice on a number of possible changes we are looking at making to tertiary policy. For example the idea of introducing a stand-down period for new permanent residents and Australians before they can access a student loan has been the subject of advice. It would obviously have an impact on a number of Australians and new permanent residents who access student loans. It would also bring student loans into line with other Government support packages and more into line with what New Zealanders experience in Australia. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: What effect will an increase of 2.5 percent in GST and an increase in fees have on the Government’s student loan liability and does he think these increases will make it easier or harder for people to access tertiary education? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The proposed increase in GST should it occur would be accompanied by a compensatory increase in student allowances. Of course fees increase every year. The previous Government had a maximum fee increase of 5 percent for most tertiary education courses and many fees have increased on that basis for many years. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How does he think part-time students will be affected by the proposed time limit on access to student loans and how does it fit with the Government’s agenda for growth in the New Zealand economy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I can inform the member that the effect on part-time students will be proportionate to the impact on full-time students. In other words we would not be expecting part-time students to progress through their academic education to the same extent that we would expect full-time students to do so. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How will increased fees for the more expensive tertiary courses such as medicine encourage students to choose those programmes and what effect will the increased fees have on the diversity and supply of highly qualified New Zealanders such as doctors in the future? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think that question assumes there would be a sizable increase in fees and I think that is very premature. I point out that the effect of stopping increases in fees for courses that are expensive to provide and allowing increases to occur for courses that are less expensive has the impact of making the courses that are less expensive to provide subsidise the more expensive courses which is hardly fair to those who are taking those courses. I also point out that the average time taken by a doctor in this country to pay off a student loan is 4 years which is considerably less than the time taken by people in many other occupations once they are qualified.
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:662;Page:10321] 
9. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: How many homes were retrofitted in March through the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation scheme? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House that in March 3837 houses were retrofitted with home insulation or a clean-heating device. Since the scheme started on 1 July 2009 the very large number of 37532 houses has received assistance under the scheme. The target for the first year was 27000 houses so that record has been beaten by some 10000 houses in only 9 months of the scheme’s existence to date. 
Melissa Lee 
: How many houses retrofitted so far are occupied by people on low incomes? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: This is one of the most pleasing aspects of the scheme. So far the uptake from low-income households has been about 60 percent of the homes that have been retrofitted—in other words homes that are occupied by low-income earners. That is over 22000 homes that will be drier warmer and healthier for the people who need that the most. 
Chris Hipkins 
: What steps has he taken to ensure that the initial quality concerns with regard to Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart have been addressed given that an audit of 570 houses that had been insulated under the scheme found that 359 or 63 percent of them had insulation problems half of which were regarded as serious; and what reassurance can he give to the 37532 householders whom he has just mentioned that their houses have been insulated to an appropriate standard and have not had a slapdash job done so that he can trump up the numbers? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is a very serious question. Since the very start of the scheme we have insisted on very high standards so the audit process—and every house that is insulated undergoes an audit process—has 100 checkpoints to ensure that all aspects of the job are up to standard. The issues that have been raised in some of the audits are considered to be easily rectifiable— 
Hon Annette King 
: Every house is audited? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Every house is audited by the installer; that is right. Then there is the— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Those members can laugh but the reality is that— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Are we going to have a go or not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order. The Hon Gerry Brownlee is answering the question. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The standards that are being achieved are extremely high compared with for example the situation in Australia. We have also held back payments from anybody who has a history of doing this work poorly as well as from others who are in a position where they have had strikes issued against them. We are quite firm that if people do not rectify poorly installed insulation they will be out of the scheme as providers.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:662;Page:10320] 
8. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 That was such a good question that it should have been higher up the list. The answer is yes. In particular I stand by my statements about the mismanagement of the previous Government which saw our tradable industries stagnate for a decade Government spending soar per capita GDP decline and New Zealand go into recession a year before the rest of the world. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Among his recent statements is his claim to Grey Power that he will consider restoring New Zealand Superannuation Fund contributions sooner than had been expected an acknowledgment that the  
Dominion Post 
’s Vernon Small was right when he called the Minister’s policy “dumb” and “short-sighted”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Amongst his recent statements when he said yesterday that inflation was low can he confirm that on top of another 10c-a-litre increase in the price of petrol an increase in GST will unnecessarily push up the cost of living and make it more difficult for those who are struggling to make ends meet to get ahead? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member needs to wait and see the details of the tax package before he jumps to the conclusion that people will be worse off. In fact as the Prime Minister has said a number of times the vast majority of New Zealanders are likely to be better off. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Among his recent statements when he says the tax system is unfair does he then agree with TradeMe founder Sam Morgan that the system is unfair because “The people that pay the most tax are working people”; if so what measures will he take to correct that injustice? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: One of the reasons that people like Sam Morgan can essentially pick their tax rate is the ridiculous tax structure that the previous Government put in place which gives many opportunities to people to structure their affairs so that they can virtually pick their tax rate. I have invited Mr Morgan if he feels uneasy in his conscience to write out a cheque to the Inland Revenue Department and pay what he believes to be his fair share of tax.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:662;Page:10317] 
5. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What improvements has the Government announced for road safety for young people? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The Government has agreed on a package of measures that will improve road safety for young drivers in New Zealand and narrow the gap in our safety record for young drivers relative to those in Australia. These measures include increasing the driving age from 15 to 16; making the restricted licence test more difficult to encourage 120 hours of supervised driving practice; improving the road safety education available to young people; and investigating tougher penalties for breaches of restricted licences. In addition the Government is investigating vehicle power restrictions for young drivers. 
David Bennett 
: What else is the Government doing for young drivers in order to reduce the road toll? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: A second package of initiatives focused on the impact of alcohol on our roads will be discussed by Cabinet shortly. This package includes a proposal to reduce the youth blood-alcohol limit to zero. 
Darien Fenton 
: What improvements has the Government been considering to cycle safety on our picturesque highways given that the Minister has just increased the potential weight of trucks to 53 tonnes while reducing the funding available for road maintenance; and what will he do to counter claims by European tourists that our roads are now too dangerous for cycle touring? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: There are a number of incorrect assertions in the member’s question including the one that we have reduced the amount for State highway maintenance. That is simply incorrect. The second point is that the increase in permitted limits for trucks will actually reduce the number of trucks on the road for the same weight of freight. The third point is that we have a number of initiatives in Safer Journeys which I am happy to provide the member with a second copy of if she wishes to read the initiatives in relation to cycle safety on New Zealand roads.
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:662;Page:10313] 
3. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What are the Government’s objectives for tax reform in this year’s Budget? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government has two main objectives: to enable the economy to grow faster and to give people more choices about what to do with their own money in a fairer tax system. Both are important and necessary. We can help to lift growth in the economy and encourage savings and exports over borrowing and consumption by making changes in the tax system. We can make it fairer if we apply even tax rates across different sectors and fix some of the glaring anomalies that currently exist. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What would be the impact on prices of any lift in GST? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: This issue was addressed by Statistics New Zealand in a release back in February. It calculated that the lift in prices from a 15 percent GST rate would be just over 2 percent. For those goods already subject to 12½ percent Statistics New Zealand says that the rise would be equivalent to a 2.22 percent lift in price. However GST does not apply to all expenditure and rents mortgage payments and school donations are exempt. When these are allowed for Statistics New Zealand says that the overall increase is about 2.02 percent. This increase would be lower than the actual inflation rate in each of the past 6 years and in 9 of the past 10 years. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: How would the Government ensure that real incomes are maintained or increased in light of a GST increase? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: A number of tools are available to the Government. Firstly income tax rates could be reduced for all levels of income by an amount that is at least as great as any GST rise. Secondly there could be an immediate upward adjustment for beneficiaries superannuitants and those receiving Working for Families and other supplementary assistance. All of these are indexed to the CPI which ensures that real incomes will be permanently maintained. In the case of national superannuation as well as CPI-indexation payments the rate would go up as a result of tax cuts. 
Stuart Nash 
: Is it one of the Government’s objectives to ensure that the 91 percent of taxpayers who are earning under $70000 a year will benefit fairly from the tax reforms in Budget 2010 after having missed out so badly in Budget 2009; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: What those taxpayers missed out on so badly was the last Government’s squandering of a long period of economic growth where those taxpayers got not one single cent until the month before the 2008 election. We will fix that. 
I seek leave to table the media release by Statistics New Zealand on 21 January 2010. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is just a media release. I think these media releases are available to all members. I do not think I will allow this.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10301] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
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. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(3)Section 2 is amended by inserting the following new subsection after subsection (2): 
“(2A)In this Part and Parts 2 and 3 unless the context otherwise requires any term that is undefined has the same meaning as that term has in the Education Act 1964.”
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10301] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
5APower of Chief Executive of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to delegate 
Section 4(5) is amended by inserting the words “or any person employed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade acting with the delegated authority of and on behalf of the Chief Executive”.
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:662;Page:10240] 
2. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What impact has Government policy had on recent movements in New Zealand superannuation rates? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Since 1 October 2008 a combination of tax cuts and other adjustments has seen superannuation payments increase significantly. In that time the single rate for a person living alone went from $571 a fortnight to $636 a fortnight which is up by nearly $65 in the hand per fortnight. The rate for a married couple went from $879 a fortnight for each person in October 2008 to $974 a fortnight which is up about $100 in the hand or more than 11 percent. The adjustments are a combination of the effect of tax cuts and inflation adjustments. 
Craig Foss 
: How would superannuitants benefit from tax changes being considered by the Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: They will benefit in the same way that the previous Labour Government argued superannuitants benefited from the tax cut it introduced on 1 October 2008 which Mr Goff appears to have forgotten about. As a result of the tax cut given by the Labour Government in 1 October 2008 superannuitants paid less tax on their national superannuation and the increase in the after-tax average wage lifted the 66 percent floor. In addition if the Government were to increase GST superannuation payments would be increased up front by just over 2 percent to reflect a one-off general rise in prices. 
Craig Foss 
: Is it possible that retired people whose income is from New Zealand superannuation could be directly worse off compared with today as a result of measures being considered in the Budget? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Superannuitants will know that because of their experience of the benefit of tax cuts on national superannuation it is not possible for them to be worse off as a result of the kinds of measures the Government is proposing. 
Craig Foss 
: What reports has he seen about how superannuitants might be reimbursed for any GST increase? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have been confused by some reports I have seen from the Leader of the Opposition who says he is opposed to any increase in GST but if an increase is put in place he will not roll it back.