edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14459] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (j) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(j)To recognise that people live and work in the area in distinct communities and to enable those people to provide for their social economic environmental housing needs and cultural well-being.
Hughes Darren: Tabling of Documents — Work and Income Rules for Advances to Beneficiaries 
Hughes Darren: Tabling of Documents — Work and Income Rules for Advances to Beneficiaries 
[Volume:675;Page:14398] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a transcript from the  
Breakfast 
 television programme this morning where John Key says he supports the honour given to Owen Glenn. 
Document not tabled.
Hartley Ann: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hartley Ann: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:675;Page:14396] 
12.  
ANN HARTLEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What benefits is Auckland seeing from the opening of the Northern Busway? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 In the week ended 17 February patronage on the Northern Express bus service has increased by 48 percent compared with last year to 17967 passengers. This is a magnificent result and I expect that investment in public transport will continue to pay huge benefits to the quality of life and economic well-being of our largest city. 
Ann Hartley 
: When will the busway be open to high-occupancy vehicles? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Northern Busway management team is working on developing options to consider the use of high-occupancy vehicles on the busway. At present both Transit and the local authorities involved want to ensure that the busway is working effectively before they give consideration to opening it up to other traffic but they are working on this issue right now. 
Keith Locke 
: After the success of the busway in reducing traffic over the harbour bridge will the Government be supporting the current proposal to provide a cycleway over the bridge? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Transit New Zealand and its regional partners Auckland City Council the Auckland Regional Council the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and North Shore City Council yesterday agreed to jointly look at all options for walking and cycling on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. The partners will joint fund the investigation and consider the connection points at either end of the bridge. The options include but are not limited just to Cycle Action Auckland’s proposal. So they are already on the case investigating the feasibility of that. 
Ann Hartley 
: How much has the Government invested in the busway? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Government has contributed $210 million to the total cost of the $300 million Northern Busway project. This is another example of the Government plugging the deficit left by the National Government in the 1990s—where public transport expenditure was capped at $40 million for all of New Zealand. I would like to show the House this graph of just how much money this Government has put into Auckland land transport since we became the Government The difference is very clear indeed.
Fairbrother Russell: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14436] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:675;Page:14394] 
10.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What reaction has he received to  
Medicines New Zealand 
 the National Medicines Strategy he released in December last year? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
Medicines New Zealand 
 which was an outcome of the confidence and supply agreement between the Government and United Future has largely been positively received by stakeholders in the sector including the pharmacy sector the Access to Medicines Coalition the New Zealand Organisation for Rare Disorders Pharmac and district health boards. There is a general view across the medicines sector that there has been a need for an overarching strategy to guide medicines policy in New Zealand for some time and  
Medicines New Zealand 
 provides that opportunity. 
Judy Turner 
: What specific steps will be taken this year to implement 
 Medicines New Zealand 
? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Let me give the member some by no means exhaustive examples. Already the Ministry of Health has begun a review of the Pharmacology and Therapeutics Advisory Committee’s—that is PTAC’s—appointment protocol and of the operational guidelines to ensure that Pharmac gets the best advice to inform its decisions. Work has begun on developing a national procurement process for vaccines and work is also well advanced on what is needed to enhance both electronic prescribing and other prescribing initiatives. 
Judy Turner 
: Why did the Minister consider it necessary to develop a National Medicines Strategy for New Zealand? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: New Zealand is amongst a number of countries in the world that are grappling with quite complex issues about the future approach to the provision of medicines adequate to meet the needs of the population. For example determining the right level of investment in medicines compared with other health services is the subject of ongoing debate in a number of countries. There are no simple answers but we felt it was necessary to develop a policy approach in New Zealand in order to try to give us a framework for working through those questions and building a medicines system that is responsive to the needs of New Zealanders and works in their best interests. This strategy which will be ongoing achieves those objectives.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14460] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 141 in the name of Taito Phillip Field to clause 13(3) be agreed to.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:675;Page:14392] 
8.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports on the patterns of wage growth in New Zealand and Australia? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. I have seen a report that shows the gap in average weekly earnings between Australia and New Zealand grew from 18.9 percent in 1990 to 28.4 percent in 1999 and since then has barely moved. Under the last National Government average real weekly earnings increased by a total of $1.31 a week in 1990 dollars over that 9-year period. Under 8 years of a Labour-led Government the rate of increase has been 30 times that level. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports on the merits of pursuing higher wages for New Zealand workers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. Last week I listened on the radio to a strange interview from the leader of the National Party who called for higher wages then said he really meant tax cuts. Much more concerning was that he told a business meeting in Northland late last year: “We would love to see wages drop.” We know from question No. 2 today that Mr Key likes to tell audiences what they like to hear but that is going a bit too far. However it is consistent with what happened in the 1990s when in 5 out of 9 years average real earnings fell in New Zealand 
Hon Bill English 
: Is that the best that the Minister of Finance can do in the face of the fact that in the last 5 years estimated real net disposable income per person—that is the measure of the income each person has available to him or her—grew twice as fast in Australia as it did New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The fact is that despite the minerals boom in Australia average weekly earnings in Australia are moving barely faster than they are in New Zealand. Under National in the 1990s average real weekly earnings in New Zealand went from $463 when it became the Government to $464 in 1990 dollars when it left the Government. That is National’s record on earnings growth. 
Peter Brown 
: From that response can we take it that the Minister shares the New Zealand First view that the Employment Contracts Act introduced in the 1990s had a huge adverse impact on wages and conditions from which we have never caught up; if he does agree with that will he ensure that such legislation will never occur again in this country? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I do agree with that. The difference between then and now is that in 1990 National promised not to cut wages and conditions but it did. This time National is promising to cut wages.
Fairbrother Russell: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14443] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14419] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee to be suspended while we take Ann Hartley’s valedictory speech and then we will proceed back into Committee after that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. Therefore it is in accordance with a decision of the Business Committee for Ann Hartley to make a valedictory statement at 5 o’clock. I will report progress and ask to sit again presently. 
Debate interrupted.
Hughes Darren: Tabling of Documents — Work and Income Rules for Advances to Beneficiaries 
Hughes Darren: Tabling of Documents — Work and Income Rules for Advances to Beneficiaries 
[Volume:675;Page:14399] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a photograph of John Key hongi-ing with Tame Iti who is currently on bail and facing serious firearm charges. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
Hon Bill English 
: It has been tabled. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It has already been tabled.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14461] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to proposed new clause 28AA set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of Dr Pita Sharples be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(2)For the avoidance of doubt subsection (1) does not apply to a decision of a local authority in relation to land that is held in fee simple by any person other than the Crown or a local authority (for example a decision in relation to a consent permit or authorisation).
Jones Shane: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Jones Shane: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14442] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister 
[Volume:675;Page:14422] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I will make a small correction to the answer I gave to question No. 11 this afternoon. I described the woman whom I used as an example in my answer as being in receipt of an invalids benefit; in fact it was a sickness benefit.
Sharples Pita: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Sharples Pita: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14433] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Later on I would like to speak to Part 2—I have a Supplementary Order Paper—but I would like to respond to some of the comments made about the preamble. To begin with I refer to Dr Nick Smith who opened his remarks by saying: “ ‘This land is a fish’—who believes that?” and so on. 
I am surprised that Dr Smith has not read the explanation in the bill which states that the saying was said by a chief Te Waatarauihi way back in 1860 at a conference in the Auckland area. The point is that he was making a spiritual and cultural expression relating to the occupation of the area. He used Maori mythology to do that. In these days when religion is used metaphorically and references are made to supernatural happenings I find it strange that Dr Smith would not allow a Maori reference to ownership or occupation. The whole idea of saying that the land is a fish is a reference to Maui which is a spiritual and cultural reference to the beginning of time. He is saying that his tribe has been here forever so that is the reference. I say to Dr Smith that we do not really think that the land is a fish at this time. 
There has been talk about the fact that consultation has split the people. I do not know of another bill where Maori have been so united. The tangata whenua Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara and the five marae representing the hapu of that area Reweti Haranui Kakanui Araparera and Puatahi—the whole five—are unanimous in supporting this bill and they approached me to support it. Te Kawerau-a-Maki of Tainui Waka the other major tribal interest in the area also support the bill. In addition to that the taura here the visiting Maori intertribal communities of whanau Waipareira and Hoani Waititi Marae also support the bill. So there is no division amongst Maori over this issue and I just wanted to make that point. 
I have spent some time on the Regulations Review Committee and on researching various bills for speaking in the House and the one thing that I find common to most bills is the lack of true consultation with tangata whenua. Yet in this case I do not know of a better example of consultation with tangata whenua than is evident in this bill. They are in my electorate I have a mandate to support them and I do support this bill.
Tabling of Documents — Work and Income Rules for Advances to Beneficiaries 
Tabling of Documents — Work and Income Rules for Advances to Beneficiaries 
[Volume:675;Page:14398] 
Tabling of Documents 
Work and Income Rules for Advances to Beneficiaries 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a transcript from the  
Breakfast 
 television programme this morning where John Key says he supports the honour given to Owen Glenn. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the Work and Income rules for advances to beneficiaries drawn up by the former deputy leader of John Key’s party the Hon Roger Sowry. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a photograph of John Key hongi-ing with Tame Iti who is currently on bail and facing serious firearm charges. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
Hon Bill English 
: It has been tabled. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It has already been tabled.
Cosgrove Clayton: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14457] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I will take one more speaker. I was giving preference to those members who have been on the select committee. I sense that the Committee really wants to move on to Part 3 and there are a lot of amendments.
Woolerton R Doug: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:14414] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First likewise supports the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill. I cannot add anything to the contribution of the honourable Minister Judith Tizard or to that of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith either. Between those two experienced members the full story has been laid out. It is clearly a nonsense that we have to come back to this House each time there is a change in this company and the simple amendment being proposed makes sure that we do not have to do that. As the previous speakers have said this is not some penny ha’penny outfit; this is a company with robust procedures around it and it is in good hands. So without further ado I say that New Zealand First supports the bill and I will leave it to other speakers.
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:675;Page:14390] 
6.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is he satisfied with the current processes relating to the acquisition of new technology by the public health system? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 District health boards and the Ministry of Health have a joint process for assessing relative patient benefit from investment in new technologies. Proposals are considered by the National Service and Technology Review Advisory Committee. I am satisfied that the process is thorough and enables close coordination of the evidence. I expect the process can be further streamlined and I am expecting to see significant progress on that this year. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Can the Minister assure us that delays such as Wellington Hospital’s 9-year wait for a third linear accelerator to treat cancer patients will not occur anywhere else in this country? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that once the health need for a third linear accelerator for Wellington Hospital had been demonstrated capital approval was received within 6 months. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware of new research resulting in new definitions of what constitutes a heart attack which will lead to a big increase in invasive angioplasty procedures; if so what contingency plans does he have to ensure that the appropriate technology will be available? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Health of course is a dynamic field. Advances—or claims of advances—emerge all the time. District health boards need to stay abreast of the emerging evidence and assess how they can respond so that patients receive services that best serve the needs of the whole population. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister also aware that positron emission tomography scanning is increasingly being used to determine the extent of coronary artery disease; if so can he advise the public of New Zealand when they will finally have access to this technology? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that district health boards agreed last year on the indications for patients requiring positron emission tomography scans. District health board chief executive officers will be considering any further evidence on positron emission tomography scanning in April this year and will be able to review whether there is any need to change the clinical indications for positron emission tomography scanning.
Gallagher Martin: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14459] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14459] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (3) and substitute the following: 
(3)The legal description of the boundaries of the area is contained in Schedule 2 and all titles to land in Schedule 2 shall be noted that they are subject to this Act such notification on the land register to be completed no later than 30 September 2008 and all registered proprietors of such land are to be notified that their land is subject to this Act no later than 30 September 2008.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14460] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 141 in the name of Taito Phillip Field to clause 13(1) be agreed to.
Groser Tim: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Groser Tim: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14435] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Kaumatua! 
TIM GROSER 
: No I would never aspire to that title. I am speaking as a weather refugee from Wellington who for the last year and a half has lived in the Waitakere Ranges in Laingholm Drive in a regenerated kauri forest and I have never enjoyed an environment more than the environment that I am living in. I have the strong sense that this debate reminds me of the old phrase “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”. It reminds me of the phrase about people talking past each other. 
Let us be honest here: we have all become green in the last 20 years. We have all been influenced. We have not necessarily gone completely to madness as have some of the former members of the McGillicuddy Serious Party who are currently in this Parliament as representatives of the Green Party. But in one way or another in our own individual way we have all been deeply influenced by the environmental movement over the last 25 years. Part of that process is I would say a strong shared sense in this Committee and amongst the people who live in the Waitakere Ranges that the older style of suburban development is absolutely anathema. We have turned our backs on that; we will never go there again. 
As I sit in the weekends when I have time off amongst the regenerated kauri forest that I live in I am shown something that I did not understand until I went there to live which is the amazing capacity of the forest if it is given some minimal protection to regenerate itself. It is quite extraordinary. These are trees that were I assume clear-felled by our predecessors about 100 years ago and they are from guessing here 10 metres high. They have not developed the breadth and the girth of the magnificent kauri that have been left untouched by exploitation but they are well on the way towards that. 
I come to this bill from that perspective. I genuinely feel either that I am perhaps missing something here or that we are talking past each other. As far as I can say from the discussions I have had with colleagues on my side of the Chamber we absolutely want to protect the Waitakere Ranges from the appalling exploitation of the past. That is not what this issue is; the issue is do we need another level of bureaucracy over the top? We feel that the answer unequivocally is no.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14461] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to clause 24(1) be agreed to.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14443] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Field Taito Phillip: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14896] 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I thought that as I spoke earlier on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill it would be rather remiss of me not to speak on the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. Graffiti is not a problem that is unique to Manukau; it is a problem throughout New Zealand. It is a problem that has been within our community for a long time. I think that we should rightfully be concerned about people who damage the property of others. We view burglary as a very serious offence and damaging other people’s property—incurring great costs to clean the damage up—is an offence. The consequences of doing that should be serious enough to warrant our support for this bill. 
 One of the things we have seen in Manukau in recent times—and one can see this particularly when using the airport—is graffiti painted all over the latest factories that have been put up along the road from the airport to Mangere. It is an ugly sight; it not a pretty image for a gateway to this nation. 
I think this bill goes some way towards recognising the seriousness of the problem of graffiti and the level of that problem today. There has been a perception over many years that graffiti is acceptable particularly in relation to the hip-hop culture which is associated with graffiti depicted on television programmes from the United States and elsewhere. I think that this bill will help to turn the minds of young people away from that sort of perception. I am not sure how effective it will be but at least it is an attempt to do something about a serious problem. 
I am not certain about the degree of effectiveness of this bill—and I think that has been mentioned by a previous speaker—but given the problem we have had and the level of ugly graffiti around the place it is about time that this Parliament recognised the need for something to be done. So I support this bill. 
I support those people in the Mangere electorate and also those in Manukau who work very hard to try to deal with the graffiti problem. I want to recognise a former Manukau city councillor from Mangere Bridge Mr Bill Kirk who is well known in the Mangere area and who has worked very hard to try to deal with graffiti over many years. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill with amendment and progress on the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. 
Report adopted.
Moroney Sue: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Moroney Sue: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14891] 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We have had 16 calls but it is a members’ day. It is entirely over to the members at this stage.
Fairbrother Russell: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14888] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: John Carter has showed great interest in other clauses so on clauses 1 and 2 he might like to take a call.
Gallagher Martin: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14886] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Henare Tau: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14882] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I agree with some parts of the previous speech. I think the Waitakere Ranges are among the most beautiful ranges that the country owns but I intensely dislike the use of the old tactic of name-dropping. It is a tactic of the union that when one is in trouble one name-drops. One would use names like Sam Neill—who flies in and says blah-blah-blah and flies out again. Labour uses Sir Edmund Hillary’s name—God rest his soul—as if he were some sort of guru just for the Labour Party to trot out when it likes. 
I heard Ms Moroney yelling out and accusing John Key of not living in that area. What a snide remark that was because none other than David Cunliffe does not live in his electorate. He lives in the CBD in Westmere. It is OK for Labour members to do that but it is a heinous crime if National does it! This bill will encourage people around the country to say to themselves: “I think I can put my name in lights. I’ll introduce the ‘Motatau Ranges Heritage Area Bill.’ ” 
Hone Harawira 
: Come on! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely! The member for Te Tai Tokerau will have nothing else to do but support that bill. He stands for— 
Hone Harawira 
: I’ll support it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: There we go! He would support anything that goes past these days. Like I said before this is nothing more than mana-munching. It is nothing more and nothing less than somebody getting up and mana-munching. A person who puts up such a bill could leave this place and have his or her name in lights and be able to say: “Well I was the member for Waitakere and I put forward this bill to save the ranges from those horrible people out there who want to put a tool shed on their 20 acres.” 
Dail Jones 
: Or a long drop. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Or a long drop. For goodness’ sake! This is the reason why this Government will not last very long. It is gone it is dog tucker: “Goodbye see you later ka kite.” 
I want to finish by saying that everything in this bill can be done with the present law—the Resource Management Act the Auckland Regional Council 5 and 10-year plan and also the Waitakere City Council district plan. There is nothing in the bill that cannot be done by the organisations that rule the roost at the moment. This is why we have to stop this bill in its tracks. 
I am disappointed in the Maori Party not for the reasons that Mr Jones put forward but purely and simply because the bill does nothing. It does nothing for local Maori it does nothing for local landowners and it does nothing for the local community. All it does is pin—[ 
Interruption 
] At least I recognise and accept that I have gone bald not like some other people. I say in conclusion that this is a nothing bill and we have to do better.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14876] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14876] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14876] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Gallagher Martin: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14875] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Fenton Darien: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14875] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Henare Tau: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14874] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will concentrate on a couple of things in Part 3. One under clause 28A is that “Local authorities must monitor and report on certain matters relating to heritage area”. Under anybody’s district plan—under the Auckland Regional Council’s district plan and under the Waitakere City Council’s district plan—local authorities already have to monitor the state of the environment. They already have to make progress towards achieving the objectives. They have to take account of a whole range of issues that are already in district plans and that are already in other pieces of legislation. So I suppose that this bill really should be called the “Waitakere Mana-munching Bill” because that is really all it is. It is all about someone’s mana. Most of the stuff in this bill including Part 3 which we are talking about— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Yes we are. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I hear the— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Yes we are talking about Part 3. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely—and I do not believe that I have strayed off Part 3 Madam Chairperson. Thank you for keeping me on track. I also say that it is absolutely ridiculous to have all these clauses in Part 3 when every clause and every meaning of every clause in Part 3 is actually in the district plan. They are actually in the Auckland Regional Council’s plan of what it has to do—what it has to look after. So why are we doing this again? 
Mr Key was right this afternoon when he talked about bureaucracy running wild. This is nothing more than an addition to that bureaucracy. There is a new paragraph (c) in clause 29 and it states: “the ability of any person to bring a claim (or continue to bring a claim) or seek a remedy in any court or tribunal—(i) arising from the Treaty of Waitangi an Act the common law or in any other manner;”. But what it does not set out or state is that people cannot bring a claim against the city council in terms of a Treaty of Waitangi claim. They just cannot but this paragraph sort of gives the impression they can. So I think there needs to be a bit of work done on that clause. 
This is nothing more than somebody standing up and saying “Look what I have done for Waitakere.” Really when we look at Part 3 all we can say is that it is about: “Look what I have done; I have now copied in Part 3 what we already do.” That is all this bill is about. It is all about standing there and saying in relation to Part 3: “Look at what I have done. I have copied what is in the Resource Management Act I have copied what is in the local district plan and I have copied what is in the 5-year and 10-year plans of the Auckland Regional Council.” We do not need a repeat of what has already been done. It is nothing more nothing less than a mana-munch by some people who want to get re-elected.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14892] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Pillay Lynne: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14864] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I will take a brief call. The first thing I will do is acknowledge Janet Clews as Paula Bennett did. I quite agree that she is a very well-respected councillor as indeed are all councillors in Waitakere. I point out to the Committee that all of the councillors were returned at the last election and there was overwhelming support from those councillors for the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. 
In Part 3 the clauses are actually quite clear and simple. It is a little annoying that Paula Bennett tries to confuse matters in this Committee but that seems to be her strategy. The first clause is about local authorities having to monitor and report on certain matters relating to the heritage area. That is about accountability. It is saying that we want a report on the state of the environment in the heritage area we want accountability across the councils and we want to make sure that the reporting is done every 5 years. I think that is a very sensible common-sense thing to do. Why are they doing it? Because they are committed to ensuring that the ranges and the heritage area are preserved now and for generations to come. They will make a commitment to checking that progress every 5 years. 
The second clause of Part 3 is about reassurance. Clause 29 is about the preservation of existing rights. We have heard many many people from the National Party—and I am sorry I know that Dail Jones has just recently joined the House but unfortunately Dail seemed to be quite confused as well—banging on and talking a load of rubbish. It is quite clear that the bill does not limit or affect any title or right to ownership. That makes a mockery of the claims made by Nick Smith and Paula Bennett that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill was confiscation by stealth. As I was driving through the beautiful ranges of Waitakere the electorate I live in and am very happy to represent I saw—very overgrown by bush I have to say—one of those “confiscation by stealth” notices to use the Nick Smith line still sitting on one of the fences. I think this preservation of existing rights definitely gives reassurance to the people of Waitakere who like me are fortunate enough to own land in the ranges. 
Clause 30 “Transitional provisions” is about consistency. The clause says quite clearly that any applications for resource consent for an activity in the area that have been lodged and not yet determined will continue to be considered as if the heritage area legislation had not been enacted. People in Waitakere can be assured that they are not going to be gazumped. Unlike what Opposition members have said nothing is going to be imposed on them and if they are part way through a process that process will continue. 
Part 3 is made up of a number of simple clauses but those clauses add up to accountability reassurance and consistency. I commend those clauses to the Committee.
Vote: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Vote: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:645;Page:14863] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to.
Pillay Lynne: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14870] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 The member Nick Smith knows full well that the priority is that this bill does not override any of the strategies he mentioned. Rather the bill works within that framework. The member is quite aware of that. This is the member who rode into town stood before a meeting and said: “This is confiscation by stealth.” He had never even seen the bill—never even seen it. Dail Jones has taken this up even further. He says the bill is socialism by stealth. 
All this silly nonsense is about scaring the people. I have met with a number of people who live in the Waitakere Ranges who said they felt much more reassured after seeing the bill and the report because they had been told by the National Party that someone would take their land and rights away. I say for the benefit of Dr Nick Smith because it is difficult for him to comprehend this stuff that the reality is that within the Waitakere Ranges under the Waitakere City Council most activity— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Be more condescending. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The member asks me to be more condescending. No I will try to explain—as I have many times and as the Local Government and Environment Committee had explained to it—that this bill sits over the Resource Management Act. It does not undermine it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Sits over! I thought you said under? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Over under—members can have it whatever way they want. This bill does not supersede the Resource Management Act; it gives guidance to councils in decision making. I will repeat that: this bill gives guidance to councils in decision making. When there is a district plan where there are resource consents going this bill gives guidance to the council to look at the big picture and the unintended consequences. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: More mush. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Nick Smith would rather just have gay abandon because that is the National Party style. The slippery National Party in one breath says residents will lose every property right they have and in the next breath says the bill is waffle and has no teeth. National members should make up their minds. They are slippery—that is the theme of the National Party. It slips around. 
Nathan Guy 
: Is that your word of the week? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is my word because National members slip around. They put fear into the local people good landowners who are committed to the land by telling them they will lose their rights— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s what the judge said. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —and then they say the legislation is waffly and means nothing. The judge now endorses this bill. Thank you Madam Chair.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14892] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Paula Bennett to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute “on 1 January 2009”.
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:645;Page:14837] 
1. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Government Administration Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill? 
SHANE ARDERN (Chairperson of the Government Administration Committee): 
 The Government Administration Committee is considering the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Annette King. Submissions were called for and advertised in the major daily newspapers on 3 November 2007 with the closing date for submissions— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a very very narrow question which asks “How many …”. The answer is a number; it is not a description of other activity. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: One cannot insist on a particular type of answer to the question. I am sure the member will get to how many submissions there are. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I am happy to help the Minister. I am sure he is anxious to hear the answer. The committee received four submissions: one oral and three written. 
Craig Foss 
: What reasons for amending the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 did the person known as the whistleblower in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board case—a person who had sought protection under that Act—provide in her submission? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think there are two reasons why that question should be ruled out: firstly the supplementary question does not relate to the primary question which asked about a number; and secondly it asked for the disclosure of material that has not yet been reported to the House. Therefore it would be inappropriate for it to be reported in this way. 
Simon Power 
: In fact the primary question related specifically to the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill which is a subject that was being addressed by the chairperson of the committee. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The reference was to the whistleblower who gave an oral submission in public to the select committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. The chairperson of the committee is not responsible for the views of submitters to the committee. The chairperson is responsible only for the process. Any question relating to the process is in order but any question that relates to the substance of the submission is out of order. So that supplementary question was out of order. 
Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table a document from the person known as the whistleblower in order to background her issues in relation to the district health board. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is.
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:645;Page:14835] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that clarifies answers to a question in which an Opposition member sought leave to table a document from the Ministry of Education alleging that 30000 students were absent from school in any one day. This document clarifies that actually it was a snapshot of that day taken morning and afternoon. It included students who were late for school and who may have been at the doctor or the dentist. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14892] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.