edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Dunne Peter: Motions — Department of Corrections—Death of Corrections Officer Jason Palmer 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Department of Corrections—Death of Corrections Officer Jason Palmer 
[Volume:663;Page:10872] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I join with others in paying tribute to the life of corrections officer Jason Palmer who was so tragically killed at the weekend in the course of his duty. Every day across this country mothers and fathers go out to work. They say goodbye to their children as they leave for what they imagine to be an uneventful day before they return home in the evening to share the ups and downs of that day with their family. I imagine a similar scene took place in the Palmer household last Saturday as it had on many other occasions. They never considered for a moment that that would be the last such occasion. That is the brutality of what happened. That is the shock and disruption that it has caused to that young family and why our hearts must go out to them in this hour of great loss. Our sympathy and encouragement is with them for the future. 
This is not the time to intrude upon that family’s grief by making political statements. This is not the time to try to turn the life of Jason Palmer into a cause for something else. We need to respect this man for what he achieved and for the dedication and commitment that he showed to this country to the country of his birth to his family and to his career. We need to acknowledge afresh the contribution made by those who serve in all our official services to protect our safety and the risks that they take day in day out. If we take a lesson from this it must be one of eternal vigilance of the need to ensure that those whom we expect to do those jobs day in day out can as I said before say goodbye to their families in the morning and come home safely at night. 
I put on record my tribute to Jason Palmer for what he achieved. I express my condolences and deep personal sympathy to his family—his wife children and extended family abroad—and express the hope that they will take some solace from the support shown to them by others around their community and country and by this House this afternoon. 
Motion agreed to.
Garrett David: Motions — Department of Corrections—Death of Corrections Officer Jason Palmer 
Garrett David: Motions — Department of Corrections—Death of Corrections Officer Jason Palmer 
[Volume:663;Page:10870] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT Party I express our sorrow at the death of officer Jason Palmer and send our sincere condolences to his family particularly to his wife Tracy and his two young children Riley and Abbey who have now lost a loving and loved father in the most tragic of circumstances. 
As an earlier speaker has said Mr Palmer died performing his duty doing a job that few in New Zealand have the courage to do in dealing with some of the most unsavoury and dangerous elements in our society. As earlier speakers have noted Mr Palmer served two countries. His country of birth was the United States where he did military service in the Marine Corps for 4 years but for the last 8 years he has called New Zealand his home with his wife and family. We are honoured to have a man who served two countries so well as one of our citizens. 
It is important to remember that even after society has rendered its verdict on a criminal’s guilt there are still those who have to remain vigilant to ensure that those dangerous criminals stay segregated from society. In a very real way Jason and every one of our corrections officers are serving the rest of us just as our soldiers do in Afghanistan. In fact they are serving us more closely in protecting us from the bad guys here at home. We in the ACT Party thank him for his service and his ultimate sacrifice and we offer our support and our condolence to his family and his friends. Thank you.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10887] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Opposition will object for two reasons: first because they are excerpts and not the whole report; second because the member asking the questions quoted from  
Hansard 
—that member’s  
Hansard 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is now getting into debating and I apologise to the House for letting this situation arise. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet and all around the House there will be silence. I do not know what has happened today. After a week off members lose their discipline. The member has sought leave to table excerpts from an ACC document. Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Bridges Simon: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10502] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I want to pick up on what my colleague from the Maori Party Te Ururoa Flavell was saying. On the face of it I suppose it was a reasonably powerful point that Paul Quinn’s member’s bill the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill takes away prisoners’ right to vote and with this bill the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill we are taking away their right to get compensation. We have apparently done that previously and we are continuing that with this bill. But I do not think that is the case. In fact as I understand this bill and previous bills none of them have done that. They have not said that prisoner A who has suffered an egregious harm in prison cannot go to court or to the independent authority and get compensation. That still occurs and in egregious cases compensation is forthcoming. What Acts passed under the previous Labour Government did and what this extending of that regime does is simply state that if prisoner A does get that compensation it is right and proper that he or she also is legally obliged to pay reparation or the like to a victim or to various victims. That money can be used for that. When members think about it that is no different than what happens in civil cases where someone goes to court wins compensation and that money goes to pay other debts. So I do not think it is necessarily a bad thing at all. 
With the exception of the Greens and maybe the Maori Party as well this bill really has widespread support because it is just technical. I think the explanatory note puts it well when it states that it is a bill that “bridges the gap between the expiry of the current regime and the enactment of a second Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill to be introduced in Parliament later in 2010.” So this is no great shakes. It is not in any sense doing anything controversial or anything radical; it is continuing what we have. As I have already said to the House I think what we have at the moment is pretty good. There is room for improvements and that will come in legislation to be introduced later this year. But what we have is nevertheless a good start. 
I think the other thing I will say lastly is that this bill can be located in a wider context and I appreciate that the Opposition has some difficulties with that. But last year and continuing on this year the justice policy and theme of this Government is to put victims at the centre of the justice system in order to do better by victims. So it is good that this bill is continuing that. We will expand upon that making things even better with a bill in the same vein later this year which will improve on previous law in the area of compensation for victims.
Vote: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10491] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the preamble clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 to 6 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Preamble clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 to 6 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Peachey Allan: Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peachey Allan: Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10522] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I have the great privilege to have been elected to represent the Tamaki electorate in this House. In that electorate there are streets such as Morrin Road Lunn Avenue and Apirana Avenue. Those are streets that the previous Labour speaker Carol Beaumont would never have heard of and would never have visited. They are streets that are full of small businesses small industries and employers with two or three employees working together to be productive. They are full of people who are prepared to put up their capital take a risk and use their entrepreneurial spirit and initiative to create a business and create work for two three or four other people. I reflect on a conversation that I had in one of those streets just the other day. I was talking to a gentleman who had set up a business and employed one person. He had employed that person as a young lad 15 years ago. He taught him the business taught him the trade and can now trust that young man to look after the business when he is away. Neither the employer nor the employee needs Labour members in this House or in legislation telling them how to conduct their relationship. That is what Labour seems so determined to do. 
It is time that Labour began to understand that healthy employment relationships are not based on its rules its domination of union secretaries or its laws passed in this House. They are based on normal human beings establishing decent relationships between themselves. It is time that the “hate the boss” mentality was removed from this country. Without people who are prepared to risk their capital and back their entrepreneurial spirit there will be no jobs for anybody else. The Labour members gave their speeches but they did not really engage in debate with this side of the House. Their speeches were clearly directed at their former colleagues the trade union secretaries one or two of whom may have been listening with no relevance at all to where this country is at and what the average New Zealander is thinking. 
The purpose of this bill is very simple. Firstly it acknowledges the importance of relationships between employer and employee and acknowledges that that relationship is best established at the local workplace level. It is not best established by being legislated for in this House by having union officials sticking their noses in or by taking away the freedom of men and women to work together to produce goods to generate income and to get on with life. I very strongly commend the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill to the House and I look forward to engaging with Opposition members at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Thank you.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10508] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a first time.
Quinn Paul: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Quinn Paul: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10507] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 There is really not much more that I can add other than to say I compliment the last speaker for the front end of his speech which I think explained in some detail what this bill sets out to achieve. But he was slightly verbose and could have been much more succinct. None the less he covered the detail. As he said all this bill does is extend an existing provision for another 2 years until a more permanent solution is implemented by this Government in the future. 
As other people have mentioned this is a very technical bill. It is only 2½ pages long and like members on both sides of the House I look forward to its expeditious consideration by the select committee. With those few words I commend the bill.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10505] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand in support of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill which is a technical bill. It amends the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005. It will extend the restriction on the awarding of compensation to prisoners for another 2 years from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2012. This provision applies to the victims’ claims process with regard to any compensation awarded to the offender. It will also apply to any settlement that takes place out of court. This bill recognises that victims should have the first claim against any compensation that is awarded to a prisoner. 
Is it fair that victims of crime have been neglected for a long time? This National Government feels that it is time we gave them the support that they deserve. We are committed to addressing the physical emotional and financial stress that victims have faced due to crime. This Government wants to put victims at the heart of our justice system. 
I have seen recent incidents where families are suffering both financially and emotionally because of crime. I cite the incident of Navtej Singh. He was a young man who was working at his shop when he was killed. His aged parents his young wife and his children are suffering both financially and emotionally. Another young man Hiren Mohini who was a taxi driver was killed in Auckland while he was working the graveyard shift. I have full sympathy for his mother wife and two daughters. 
This bill states that where a prisoner is awarded any compensation the victim of that prisoner has the right to claim against that compensation. In conclusion I say that victims’ rights should come before the rights of offenders. 
This bill will now go to the Justice and Electoral Committee which is well chaired by Chester Borrows. We have a very good association with the members of the Opposition on that committee. We have very cordial relations with them. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10492] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Report adopted.
Chadwick Steve: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10492] 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Steve Chadwick) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted 
.
Cosgrove Clayton: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10491] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document. The document is a statement by the Minister of Local Government and ACT leader Rodney Hide and it states that he and his colleague Nick Smith sacked the democratically elected body Environment Canterbury. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is this a public document in the public domain? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Media clippings statements—everything. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will not accept that.
Finlayson Christopher: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10465] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I seek leave for all the provisions of the bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears to be no one. Leave is granted.
Finlayson Christopher: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10489] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I thought that I would make brief reference to the spiritual and cultural references in the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill. I thank members for their very helpful contributions. As Maryan Street said it is a very interesting ontological argument. I have to confess that I was looking up the etymology of that word and Mrs Chadwick must have pimped on me to Maryan Street because she came along and said to me “Don’t you know the meaning of ontology?”. But anyway! 
A number of points have been made but I just refer Mr Garrett to clause 8(1) of the bill which says: “The Crown recognises the statement of significance of the Waikato River to Waikato-Tainui as stated in this section.” and that statement is set out. The inclusion of those references was made at the request of Waikato-Tainui who wished to articulate their relationship with the river in their own words. Those references are carefully defined so I do not believe that the potential confusion that has been suggested by Mr Garrett and his colleagues will occur. I can recall a couple of years ago actually making a speech that was not as intense as Mr Garrett’s contribution but it was critical of some references to this sort of thing. I think it was in the Te Arawa lakes legislation. I would like to think that a few years on not only have I grown older but I have grown up because I think those references are appropriate in this bill. 
I do not think that it is very helpful for any member of this House to indulge in some form of cultural imperialism: that if there are references to Western Christianity or something like that then it is acceptable but references to this sort of thing represent as the  
National Business Review  
foolishly said on Friday some kind of challenge to the separation of Church and State. It is nothing of the sort. It is not a challenge to the separation of Church and State and I think the member demeans himself in relation to that kind of thing. I simply say to him and it was a point made I think by Mr Horomia—who referred to Christian practices going back 5000 years; actually I think it is about 2000 years but maybe he has a greater insight into these things than I do—that it is very easy to diminish Seder dinners masses and things like that. People find their own way to happiness and their own way to eternity. My very strong advice to Mr Garrett is to bone up on hell and purgatory. After that contribution I think he is in dire dire need of some study because I say on balance that I think he is headed there.
Quinn Paul: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:662;Page:10472] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It is indeed a privilege to be able to speak to this bill during the Committee stage. I will comment on just a couple of points. The first is the fact that there have been some comments about the delay in bringing this before the House. I think it is appropriate to record that at the time this was brought before the first select committee when I joined five administrative bodies were involved in the framework in administering this river through the settlement process. I recall without wanting to drop officials in it turning to the officials and asking them whether they really and truly believed and could look me in the eye and say that creating a multitude of five bodies was an appropriate and successful way to administer the river. The simple answer is that it was not and the Minister showed the leadership along with the leadership of the tribe—and in that respect I acknowledge Tuku Morgan who is here with us today—to provide a more streamlined administrative process in creating the river authority that we now have before us. 
That leads me to the second point that I will address which is that some concern has been expressed—in fact I saw a press release today from Federated Farmers around the fact that this bill was going through and their objections to it etc. A lot of that concern is around the vision and the strategy how it takes precedence over this and drives that and so on and so forth. I think it is misplaced concern because in the first instance the vision is if you like a dream that Waikato-Tainui the Government and local government have for the future of this river. Those broad statements of what people are looking for are set out in schedule 2; I think it is worth just touching on some of those. They are not in my view offensive; they are not going to drive people to the ends of the earth. 
What is wrong with talking about for instance “the restoration and protection of the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River:”? This is after all what we all want in the environment. What about “the restoration and protection of the relationships of Waikato-Tainui with the Waikato River including their economic social cultural and spiritual relationships:”? These are visions and it will be the job of the management to set out a process that over the long term will achieve the vision and the strategy. A further schedule I think schedule 3 provides for this vision and strategy to be reviewed with the agreement of the authority. Again we need to record that the authority is made up of five Maori representatives and five Government appointees with one of each co-chairing so it will be a process of consensus. The whole way that it has been constructed and the way in which Waikato-Tainui and the Crown have entered into these arrangements is about building a relationship building consensus and achieving a great goal for this area of the country.
Katene Rahui: Offices of Parliament Address to Governor-General 
Katene Rahui: Offices of Parliament Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:662;Page:10463] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I take the opportunity of this Government motion to commend the work that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is doing. The Maori Party places enormous significance on our roles to protect natural values to achieve sustainable development and to keep our environment healthy safe and intact for everyone and for future generations. We start of course from the perspectives of whanau hapu and iwi as tangata tiaki to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the well-being and future good health of the environment. This is the goal that all of us take very seriously so we have been very impressed by the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in trying to set in place roles and responsibilities for regular reporting on the state of the environment to different public entities. The report she issued last week encouraged us to consider the value of a national environmental reporting Act. The Maori Party is interested in this idea as a mechanism to report in a systematic way on the state of the environment. In fact it was a bit of a shock to learn from Dr Wright’s report that we are the only country in the OECD that does not have a formalised process for regular national reporting on the environment. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise an important issue. This is the draft Budget debate on these Offices of Parliament; it is not about the value of these votes. I have not heard anything about the Budget.
Brownlee Gerry: Offices of Parliament Address to Governor-General 
Brownlee Gerry: Offices of Parliament Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:662;Page:10460] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General commending to His Excellency the appropriations and information for the 2010/11 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. 
Officers of Parliament are independent from the executive. It is therefore appropriate that their budget-setting process is different from that of the Government. The Officers of Parliament Committee considers Budget requests from the three Officers of Parliament. It makes recommendations to the House. The House then sends an Address to the Governor-General requesting that the estimates be included in the main Appropriation Bill for the coming financial year. 
Some features of the estimates worth noting here include a capital injection of half a million dollars to enable the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General to manage increased pressure on its capital requirements an increase of $320000 in core funding for the Office of the Ombudsmen for the next 2 years to deal with a rising backlog of cases—this reflects the busy work of the Opposition in many ways but the funding will be reviewed as part of the consideration of the 2012 Budget—a further increase of $230000 for the Office of the Ombudsman for the next 3 years to carry out monitoring under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and a reduction of $150000 of funding per year for the audit function of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. This occurs because the monitoring function that the commissioner performs in relation to the Electricity Commission is likely to be removed with the passage of the Electricity Industry Bill that is now before the House. These appropriations are the subject of the Address to the Governor-General. I look forward to the House supporting them as they obviously support the various Officers of Parliament through this process.
Wilkinson Kate: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:662;Page:10509] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Justice and Electoral Committee consider the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 June 2010 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Gareth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hughes Gareth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10459] 
2. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: When will the committee report on the Marine Reserves Bill? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee) 
: 
 The current reporting date for the Marine Reserves Bill is 30 December 2010. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Will the committee call for further submissions given the 7-year delay since the last submissions? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: At the risk of sounding like a parrot I say the member will be aware that further information on the committee’s consideration of this item of business remains confidential until the committee makes its final report to the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand the need to have a defensive answer but that was not an answer; it did not address the issue. A more reasonable answer could—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member but I say to members that a point of order is being heard. 
Metiria Turei 
: An answer that does address the question could be made. That answer certainly was not one that did so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The area of what is confidential to the committee is a very difficult area. If the committee has made a decision with regard to hearing further submissions it may well be that that matter is confidential to the committee. But what would not breach confidentiality in my view would be to give an indication of whether further submissions have been called for. Because the chair of the committee has a role in calling for submissions I think it is reasonable that the chair of the committee answers questions in respect of calling for submissions. I do not want to be unduly unfair on the member because he is quite right that decisions of the committee are confidential. But chairs have a particular role with regard to calling for submissions so it may be possible to indicate whether the intention is to call for further submissions. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Thank you again Mr Speaker for your guidance in answering this particular question. The committee will determine whether it will call for future submissions at such time as it gives that matter consideration.
Dunne Peter: Motions — New Zealand Defence Force—Deaths of Air Force Personnel in Anzac Day Helicopter Crash 
Dunne Peter: Motions — New Zealand Defence Force—Deaths of Air Force Personnel in Anzac Day Helicopter Crash 
[Volume:662;Page:10446] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 It is sadly customary in the lead-up to Anzac Day each year for there to be inevitable speculation about the day’s continuing relevance to contemporary generations and speculation about how difficult it is to imagine the conditions and the circumstances with which those who left these shores to fight in the two great world conflicts had to cope. On last Anzac Day morning the crash that occurred at Pukerua Bay and claimed the lives of Flight Lieutenant Hayden Madsen Flying Officer Daniel Gregory and Corporal Benjamin Carson and allowed the miraculous escape of Sergeant Stevin Creeggan I think gave a relevance to New Zealanders of what the day is all about and the sacrifice of those who had gone before in so many previous conflicts and what they had encountered during the course of such conflicts. 
We take for granted our freedom today and that is said often during the Anzac Day commemorations. We also take for granted the presence and the contribution of our armed forces and the expectation that they will always be there to do their duty. These young men were doing their duty on Sunday morning. They could not have contemplated as they set off the circumstances that were about to befall them. Like others I join with people right across New Zealand in expressing to the families of those young men to their wider air force family and to all New Zealanders with a connection to the services a sense of absolute sadness of deep shock but of huge admiration for their dedication and their commitment. 
As the previous speaker said age shall not weary them nor the years condemn. We will remember them. We will always remember the sacrifice of those who have done so much to secure the circumstances in which we live today. I simply say to their families and friends that although these times will be difficult sad and stressful there will be long-term consolation for them in knowing the regard in which they were held the admiration for the service they performed and the call to dedication and duty that they demonstrated. May they rest in peace. 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Gareth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hughes Gareth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10459] 
1. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: When did the committee last consider the Marine Reserves Bill? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee) 
: 
 The committee last considered the bill on 4 June 2009. 
Gareth Hughes 
: When will the committee next consider the Marine Reserves Bill? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: The member will be aware that further information on the committee’s consideration of this item of business remains confidential until the committee makes its final report to the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was an answer to some other question but it was certainly not an answer to this one. The question was “When will the committee next consider”. What the member has attempted to answer is not a question about confidential information. I think that a better answer could be sought. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has raised an interesting point. Although we have to be careful with questions to chairs of committees I think the member could indicate whether the committee is yet to decide when it might next have this bill in front of it. This matter is the subject of a committee decision. Therefore when the member says that the matter is confidential to the committee we need to respect that but it may be possible to indicate that the committee is yet to make a decision on it or whether the committee has made a decision. I leave it in the member’s hands. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Thank you Mr Speaker for your guidance. The committee will next discuss the report when it chooses to.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10456] 
11. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Why is the Government amending legislation relating to rest and meal breaks? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The Government is concerned that the current regime is too inflexible. It is important for all workers to have reasonable rest and meal breaks but there needs to be sufficient flexibility in the legislation so that it works for all industries all employers and all employees. We have a bill for consideration tonight that will do just that. 
David Bennett 
: What feedback has the Minister received on the bill? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have received numerous emails and letters from New Zealanders who are frustrated with the practical implications of the current law including one communication from a teacher who said: “The current legislation has made things worse for schools not better. I believe that teachers need more flexibility in their break times and things were working well beforehand. Our duty times have doubled from 45 minutes a week to 90 a week as our management team insists this has to happen to cater for the law.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does she agree with the statement that the current legislation merely codifies what went before; if so can she remember who made that statement? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes. That was an aspirational statement made by me during the reading of the bill passed by the previous Government. As the member will well realise and remember we had raised concerns that the major issue was not in relation to the provision of the breaks but to the prescriptive nature of the timing of those breaks. Our fears have been realised and we are fixing it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can she remember using the air traffic controllers as the major reason for the urgency behind this bill and is she aware that when the parties sat down they sorted it out very easily? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Certainly the air traffic issue was a catalyst for considering the flawed legislation but the Civil Aviation Authority was only one of several groups that approached me about this flawed legislation. We listened to them and we are fixing it.
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10454] 
8. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received of improvements to front-line emergency ambulance services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Members may recall that the Government invested an extra $48 million over 4 years for ambulance services including 100 extra paramedics. I am pleased to advise today that almost half of those 100 paramedics have started work and the rest are on track to be recruited in this quarter. This is already making a significant impact on ambulance services especially on the ability to have double-crewing for call-outs in some areas. For example with the additional paramedics Wairarapa District Health Board is now able to operate the Greytown station 24/7 and staff are able to take well-earned leave. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What other improvements to front-line ambulance services can the Minister report? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yesterday my colleague Nathan Guy and I attended a celebration of care closer to home in Kapiti. On the Kapiti coast Wellington Free Ambulance has halved the number of hospital admissions on its call-outs. Its paramedics assess patients at home first and treat them on the spot if that is appropriate. Wellington Free Ambulance through its 24/7 treat-at-home urgent community care pilot funded by this Government has seen 1161 Kapiti patients and admitted only 399 of them to hospital. That is a drop from 75 percent hospital admissions to just 34 percent. Over half of those patients are over 75 years old. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How many more elderly will need an ambulance following his decision to strip more than 3000 people in Southland and Otago of their home help? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have been assured by the district health boards that no one will be left unsafe in their homes but I have also been advised by the Otago District Health Board and the Southland District Health Board that during the time of the previous Government in the last 3 years hundreds of people in that area actually had their home care stopped. There will be more information on this matter in question time later this week. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How many more people in Palmerston North and Horowhenua will need an ambulance following his decision to allow the 24-hour-a-day district nursing services to be scrapped? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The changes that are being considered at MidCentral District Health Board have nothing to do with the level of funding that the Government has given them. The Government has in fact increased funding for MidCentral District Health Board by $26 million in the last year and there will be more money next year. I assure the member that care will be available for those people in Palmerston North.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10452] 
6. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture 
: What announcements has he made today regarding aquaculture reforms? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 Today I announced that the Government has agreed to a range of measures to support the aquaculture industry’s goal of generating annual sales of $1 billion by 2025. We want to help boost the sector’s potential to generate sustainable economic growth for New Zealand while still protecting the environment and the interests of other coastal users. This is actually about creating jobs and getting more people into work particularly in the regions where they really do need those jobs. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why are these aquaculture reforms necessary? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: No new aquaculture space has been created under the current law. Any new aquaculture space that has come into stream in the last few years has come under the old law. We want to free up the regulatory bottlenecks that have kept aquaculture planning in limbo. The industry has been stifled by inflexible rules which have been stopping companies and small businesses from investing. If we want jobs and growth in the regions these are the types of initiatives we need.
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10451] 
5. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Whanau Ora 
: Does she stand by all her recent statements? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister responsible for Whanau Ora) 
: 
 I am hoping I can but it will really depend on what statement the member is referring to. 
Hon Annette King 
: On what evidence did she base her answer last week that there had been 30 years of failed provision from existing service provision and that is why Whanau Ora was needed? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: The statistical data that is collected which is floated in front of us on a daily basis as to how badly Maori families in particular are doing. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has she read the  
Social Report 2009 
 from the Ministry of Social Development which shows that there has been substantial improvement for Maori in many measurable indicators particularly over the last 10 years during a time when she was in fact a Minister in a Labour-led Government; and why does she call those gains made for Maori and provided by mainstream and Maori providers failures? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I think it is important to acknowledge what has worked well but we think we can do considerably better. Hence the new programme. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does she stand by her statements that the approach this Government is taking to address the well-being of whanau is a different approach from that taken in the past; that the Government has committed itself to work with whanau hapu and iwi; and that the Government’s policy aims to drive Maori development through a new partnership approach between whanau hapu and iwi; and is she aware that all those statements were made when she was in a Labour-led Government; if so what changes has this Government made to that approach? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: It is one thing to make statements; it is another thing to implement them. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does she stand by her statement that training has already begun for the 20 providers for Whanau Ora; if so who are the providers how were they chosen and why have they not been announced yet? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: What I did say was that some providers had begun to provide training to their staff. They have done that from their own budgets and in their own time.
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10451] 
4. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What strategies have been introduced to respond to evidence that over the past decade Maori drinking prevalence rates have now reached the same level as non-Maori and yet Maori report higher unmet needs for reducing alcohol consumption? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The primary strategy that this Government has introduced is the whole-of-Government Drivers of Crime strategy. Reducing alcohol-related harm is one of the four priority areas of the Drivers of Crime strategy. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does he agree with the Law Commission that a new Act an Alcohol Harm Reduction Act is required; and how will Maori solutions be included and community ownership sought in developing a new Act to address inequalities such as the fact that Maori women suffer more adverse effects as a result of other people’s drinking than any other subgroup by ethnicity and gender? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Legislative change in the areas covered by the Law Commission’s report tabled today is likely. In the event that legislation in the area of alcohol is on its way to Parliament then all New Zealanders including those who have specific issues around harm-related matters will have the opportunity to make submissions during the course of any legislative changes if that is the wish of Parliament.
Horomia Parekura: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Horomia Parekura: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10456] 
10. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples “will have no impact on New Zealand law”? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Article 46 of the declaration ensures that the laws of the sovereign States that support the declaration remain intact. But as laws change with the changing culture of society then who knows the declaration may be able to inform new laws. That would give a Labour Government a chance to change its mind and support the declaration. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Did the Minister just affirm the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or did he put pen to paper and sign up to it on behalf of the New Zealand Government? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: The original vote taken was a vote. Now people declare; they do not sign anything. There are two countries yet to declare. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Is it his intention to advocate changes to New Zealand law to facilitate movement towards the aspirations of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I am quite happy that the processes that we have in place at this moment support those of the declaration and more important of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister agree with a former New Zealand Permanent Representative to the United Nations Rosemary Banks that article 26 of the declaration “implies indigenous peoples have rights that others do not”; if he does not why not? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: No. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Kia ora Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples means that only members of iwi and hapu are indigenous New Zealanders; if that is the case what does he think the status of Pakeha is? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: The status of Pakeha is that of tangata Tiriti through the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Does he believe that New Zealanders of non-Maori descent can ever claim to be either native or indigenous to New Zealand? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: They certainly can agree to be native because we are all native to this place. But at the end of the day we are all New Zealanders working together. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena tatou katoa. What other countries have changed their position on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: When I had finished making our declaration at the United Nations I was immediately met by the permanent representatives of the United States and Canada who said that we had put them on the spot. The following day they made speeches indicating that they too will be following suit.