edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Upston Louise: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Upston Louise: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7407] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak in support of the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. It is very timely as 2009 is the International Year of Astronomy so it is great to see support for a national icon. Of course speakers before me have acknowledged the support from the observatory’s namesake Charles Rooking Carter who gifted his estate to the Royal Society of New Zealand. 
We are now moving into the changes to the Carter Observatory which will delicately combine science education and tourism. I acknowledge the previous Government for providing the necessary financial support to the observatory and also Wellington City Council for taking up the challenge and in effect recreating the Carter Observatory and taking it into its new life as a scientific educational and tourist icon. The plan is for the observatory to be opened in February next year. It is fascinating to think that the observatory is a place where people could get married as well as visit as tourists or in school groups. There have been quite a lot of stories of people’s encounters with the universe but I like Mr Grant Robertson am unfortunately of the era that was not around when man first landed on the moon. 
Just before I close this evening I will reinforce how important this observatory is for education and how important it is for schoolchildren to experience these observatories firsthand. It was only last year that my 10-year-old boy had a school trip to the observatory in Hamilton and I went with him. The school is a small country school. It was incredible not only to see the expressions on the faces of these children as they looked out into the wild universe but also to see the surprise of some of the parents who had never had the opportunity to gaze into space into the wonder and delight of the universe out there. 
I say that this is a fantastic opportunity: not only will science and astronomy societies get to enjoy the Carter Observatory but it will also be new tourism infrastructure to add to Wellington City. As Mr Robertson pointed out the building at the top of the Cable Car is another tourist attraction that both locals and international visitors can enjoy as well as a place where students and scientists alike can go to study. I will say one last word in departing and in support of this bill in its first reading. I invite my parliamentary colleagues during this long weekend coming up not just to pick daisies and smell roses but also to spend a moment in the evening enjoying the night sky and the wonder of the universe. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.
Garrett David: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Garrett David: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7404] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 There must be something in the air or perhaps it is just astronomy but I was fortunate enough to enter the Chamber in the closing stages of the inspiring speech made by Mr Peachey. I was very happy to have it put in context by Ms Mackey because clearly I missed the crucial reference to mystical experiences connected with observatories. I too have very fond memories of not just any old observatory but the Carter Observatory when I lived in Wellington in the early 1990s. They were not experiences that were directly connected with astronomy but they were certainly temporally and spatially connected with the observatory or more particularly the grassy surrounds thereof. It was a very pleasant and sunny spot to have lunch watch the world go by and take a step back from the complex hurly-burly of life as it then was for me. 
I am also reminded of the moon landings. I was lucky enough to be alive at the time and old enough to enjoy it although I do remember it seemed to take Neil Armstrong an awfully long time to get down the ladder. I think I asked my father why he was so slow. I believe that Mr Armstrong made one remark that caused great confusion for many many years. It was a mumbled remark which needed to be analysed by those back at Cape Kennedy as it then was; it has reverted now to Cape Canaveral. It was finally worked out that Mr Armstrong said: “Good luck Mr Gorsky!”. There was great inquiry as to who this mysterious Mr Gorsky was. I cannot elaborate in the House but if any member wishes to ask me the rest of the story outside the House I am happy to oblige. 
The cosmos is certainly a wonderful thing a wonderful phenomenon. My daughter aged 8 now went to a planetarium and she was absolutely fascinated by that but how much more wondrous the real thing is. 
I am very happy to be so in tune with the Greens on this particular bill because I frequently look up in the sky at night and wonder about what I see—and what I cannot see. I am very sad that Dr Graham is not in the Chamber and I ask other members not to take any exception but he is a very learned man and he would know when the solar system was mapped. Here we are in 2009 and one would think the mapping was all done but just this year astronomers have discovered a new ring around Saturn. That is fascinating; hundreds of years after the solar system was mapped a new ring has been discovered. That can only happen when we have observatories. The ACT Party has much pleasure in supporting this bill.
Graham Kennedy: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7403] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to continue the misty-eyed tradition of personal reminiscences that appears to have sprung up in the course of this afternoon. I succumb to the temptation to recall that I am—and I look forward to being corrected here—arguably the only current member of the House to have audited Astronomy 1 at Harvard University in 1973. I also recall participating in a breathtaking experience in Thailand in 1982 when all nine planets were in alignment and watching the wonderment on the faces of my two young sons at the time and participating in viewing the Leonids meteorite show in 2002 from Wadi Rum on the floor of the Jordanian desert where it is both cold and extraordinarily clear. 
Moana Mackey 
: OK you win! 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: I can go on and I shall. Within a month or two of returning to New Zealand in 2005 I visited the Mount John Observatory at Lake Tekapo for the first time and viewed the stunningly beautiful landscape looking down on a snowstorm below us. It was inspiring to a Belgian immigrant family we were hosting at the time. 
These recollections tend to introduce wonderment into what might otherwise pass as pedestrian legislation on a Thursday afternoon. Such experiences tend to strike and touch the heart if not the soul of every one of the 122 mortals who congregate here from week to week. Certainly the wonders of the cosmos tend to place question time in perspective as might anything outside the House. 
The Green Party supports— 
Grant Robertson 
: Tell us more about Thailand! 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: —members will be relieved to know I am moving on to the business-like part of my address—the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. A 2005 ministry report recommended that the Act be repealed that the observatory be handed over to the Wellington City Council and that other options for a national observatory be considered. Under the last Government extensive refurbishment was funded and completed. In December 2007 the Wellington City Council confirmed that it wanted greater involvement in the operation and governance of the observatory and that was welcomed by its board. The bill seeks to complete a process of transition that has been under way for many years now. 
The Green Party sees no reason for this bill not to proceed at this time. We welcome public input into the process and we hope that all the recommendations of the 2005 report are given full consideration by the House. Thank you.
Graham Kennedy: Legal Services Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Legal Services Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7391] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is happy to support the Legal Services Amendment Bill through the second reading. 
We note that in essence the bill addresses issues of natural justice in the context of victims’ rights. I recollect the comments of our Maori Party colleague in the first reading. One might say that almost an emotional attachment to the objectives of the bill was expressed by Rahui Katene at the time. I say that we understand where she and her party are coming from having listened to some of the stories that are involved. We certainly recognise and support the main objectives of this bill: the removal of financial eligibility testing and the improvement of administrative practices. 
The only area of contention if that is the word pertains to whether the bill could have gone further in its current drafting but I accept the explanation of the Minister of Justice that these issues can be considered later and that they should await the review of the legal services aid system. The Green Party is happy to do that and we look forward to that review. 
On balance we have been pleased to be involved in the Justice and Electoral Committee’s deliberations on this bill and we look forward to further discussion in the Committee.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Legal Services Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Legal Services Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7390] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Legal Services Amendment Bill. The bill recognises the importance of acknowledging the rights of victims of crime. Victims suffer not only the physical or mental trauma of crimes committed against them but also additional injuries. They have to outlay costs and expenses incurred for legal fees that are most likely to be beyond their means. 
These amendments to the Legal Services Act are designed to ensure that victims are not subjected to financial eligibility tests and do not need to repay legal aid grants for lawyers when attending inquests and Parole Board hearings. The bill grants the Legal Services Agency the discretion to waive its right to recover legal aid where an individual’s circumstances would mean that that would cause serious hardship or would not be viable or where it is inequitable to enforce the debt. 
It is not acceptable that victims should be treated in such a way. Often the individuals or members of the family while grieving for their loved ones are presented with an account to pay an extensive amount of money when without a doubt they should not be accountable in such a situation. 
This bill inserts the definitions “offender” and “victim” into the Legal Services Act 2000. The term “offender” is defined as “a person convicted of the crime or offence that affected the victim”. The term “victim” is defined as “a person against whom an offence is committed by another person;”. 
The bill is a response to two high-profile cases in which victims were told they had to repay their legal aid grants. The main case was that of a senseless murder that of Karl Kuchenbecker at the hands of Graeme Burton. The deceased’s former partner received a letter from the Legal Services Agency. This letter estimated that the maximum fee would be $19000 which she would be required to pay in respect of a legal aid grant made to her during the coronial inquiry into the death of her partner. This caused a great deal of stress for her and upset her greatly. Victims should always be treated in a caring and sympathetic manner; certainly not victimised. 
During the select committee process we received six submissions from interested groups and individuals. Two submissions were heard in person. 
In conclusion the measures proposed in this bill will support victims. It will give victims peace of mind no longer burdened by the financial cost of legal representation in ongoing legal matters to do with the Crown.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7386] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a copy of the announcement made by the Government at 2.10 p.m. today after question time had commenced that the Government and ACT have agreed to privatise parts of the accident compensation scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7385] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to ask one question and one supplementary question on the announcement made by the Government during question time that it will privatise parts of the accident compensation scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7379] 
7.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What progress has the Government made on its initiative to roll out ultra-fast broadband in urban areas? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 What a fine question. Yesterday the Government released the invitation to participate in our $1.5 billion ultra-fast broadband investment initiative. This allows companies to submit their bids to co-invest with the Government and local fibre companies which will roll out the fibre to schools hospitals businesses and homes. The invitation to participate or ITP is based upon an innovative commercial model that will see the Government largely fund the deployment of fibre into communities and the Crown’s local fibre company partner gradually taking a greater share in the local fibre company as it connects customers. This risk-sharing model reduces the risk around demand uptake and will further encourage investors to participate. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why is the Government investing in broadband infrastructure? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Access to broadband is part of the essential infrastructure of a productive and growing economy and will be crucial to New Zealand improving its competitive advantage in the global market. The Government understands that private sector companies have made a commercial decision not to invest in fibre to the home themselves and so wishes to improve the business case for broadband because of the public benefit to be gained from such a network. In addition the benefits to New Zealand of improving rural broadband will be significant and that is why we are spending an additional $300 million to improve rural broadband services. 
Clare Curran 
: Does he believe that structural separation of Telecom New Zealand prior to the roll-out of the Government’s broadband reforms is necessary to achieve truer competition at the wholesale and access levels and can he confirm that he met with Telecom New Zealand’s chief executive officer Paul Reynolds last Friday to discuss structural separation? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No I cannot confirm that structural separation would be necessary. I can confirm that I met with Paul Reynolds last Friday in preparation for a meeting between the Prime Minister me Mr Reynolds and his chairman yesterday and structural separation was not on the agenda.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7375] 
4.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What steps has the Government taken to tackle illegal street racing? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yesterday the legislation arising from the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill passed its third reading. It closes numerous loopholes in the current law and provides for the ultimate deterrent of crushing the cars of the worst repeat offenders. This legislation comes into force on 1 December this year. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Why was this legislation needed? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It was necessary because illegal street racing had become a major problem in cities around New Zealand. It was necessary to close the loopholes in the existing legislation. The seriousness of this problem was highlighted by the attack on a lone Christchurch police officer by 300 illegal street racers in January. This attack prompted me and the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce to do everything that we could with our colleagues to put a stop to these hoons. 
Brendon Burns 
: Why did the Government’s legislation not cut exhaust noise limits as repeatedly promised by Ms Wagner—and others including Nick Smith—who launched a second petition by saying a 90-decibel exhaust limit was required because noisy cars are environmental vandalism? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That matter of course could be dealt with in another bill—certainly not in this bill. This is a police bill not a transport bill. I would say though that that member’s Government had 9 years to deal with the issue and it failed appallingly. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How will the new legislation assist in making our streets safer? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It will strengthen the powers of the courts to order the confiscation of motor vehicles empower the courts to order the destruction of motor vehicles used by repeat illegal street racers and toughen the provisions regarding seizure of motor vehicles to enforce the collection of unpaid fines.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7375] 
3.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he support the principle of full funding of future Crown liabilities as for example in ACC? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes in general. As accident compensation is an insurance scheme then full funding is therefore appropriate. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he support the principle of the full funding of future Crown liabilities in respect of superannuation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member will know national superannuation is not an insurance scheme. It is a “pay as you go” scheme so it is treated differently. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he support the full funding of future Crown liabilities in respect of carbon emission units? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has made some practical decisions to put in place a moderated emissions trading system. There are ongoing consequences from that. We are happy to debate those. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What is the Government’s normal approach to funding its liabilities? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government deals with some of its future liabilities on a “pay as you go” system. For instance people on the invalids benefit are generally regarded as not being able to work in the future but we deal with them on a “pay as you go” basis because they are on a welfare benefit. However clear insurance liabilities or well-defined pension liabilities are fully funded such as the Government Superannuation Fund is. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why does he think it is necessary to manufacture a crisis in the accident compensation scheme through the principle of full funding when he has just rejected again the same principle in respect of climate change and superannuation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We did not manufacture the idea of full funding. Labour was in power for 9 years with a full funding deadline of 2014 in the law. It had the opportunity to change that. Labour never changed it and it certainly ignored the obligations that that deadline put on it to run the scheme responsibly. Labour behaved recklessly and now levy payers are paying for that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How can he believe it is consistent ethical or fiscally responsible for taxpayers to meet the full cost of funding accident compensation which runs a cash surplus of nearly $2 billion but to load the full cost of superannuation and carbon liabilities on to our children? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is displaying the current confusion in Labour over its policy positions. Labour needs to decide whether it thinks that accident compensation should be fully funded or “pay as you go”. In fact on the issue of superannuation I say today’s workers pay all the national superannuation liabilities.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:658;Page:7371] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 No decisions have as yet been made but the member may be interested to know that the previous Government took urgency 22 times in its first term in order to advance its programme in fact. We are similarly keen to advance our programme with a sense of vigour and enthusiasm.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Volume:658;Page:7371] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that fulsome and thorough report about the House’s progress and inquire of him whether we can look forward to week 6 of urgency next week and what might be covered by such legislation if once again the House is put into that process.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:658;Page:7371] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 27 October the Government intends to make progress on bills on the Order Paper including the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill and the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill and to introduce bills as they become available.
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
[Volume:658;Page:7371] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yesterday the Hon Dr Nick Smith raised with me the tabling by leave of a document. When seeking leave members should provide an accurate but succinct description of the document’s content if possible indicating its author the publisher and the media in which it has published and when. These are not absolute requirements as they will not be appropriate for all documents that members seek to table by leave. However as far as possible I have endeavoured to encourage members to provide this type of information in order that the House can make an informed judgment about whether leave should be granted. 
The particular document to which the Hon Dr Nick Smith referred was described as a statement by an Australian senator “containing a summary of the changes put forward by the Liberal Opposition and the critique by the Labour Government of those changes.” The actual document tabled was a very brief piece from a news website. It quoted the senator saying: “there’s not a bottomless pit of money for an emissions trading scheme” but contained no real summary or analysis of changes put forward by the Liberal Opposition. From the description given members were entitled to think that something more informative would be forthcoming. 
I ask members to take care when describing documents. The House makes its judgment on whether a document should be tabled on the basis of the description given. The House is entitled to an accurate description. Where the House grants leave for a document to be tabled it is the responsibility of the member to whom the leave is granted to present the document to the Clerk before the end of the sitting day. The Clerk is not expected to scrutinise the documents tabled. If on the face of it they match the leave granted they are accepted. 
I caution members seeking leave to table documents. If a member given leave to table a document deliberately misleads the House by delivering to the Clerk a substantially different document a contempt is committed. The granting of leave to table a document is one of the valued practices of the House. Members should be careful not to abuse it. Its purpose is to inform debate by making available to members documents that would otherwise not be available. Members should be careful to observe this test. Leave should not be sought to table documents that are part of the published proceedings of the House and its committees or media articles that are readily available to all members.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7385] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I lodged an urgent question in light of the Government’s announcement today after question time had commenced that it will privatise parts of—
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:658;Page:7371] 
Business Statement 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 27 October the Government intends to make progress on bills on the Order Paper including the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill and the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill and to introduce bills as they become available. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that fulsome and thorough report about the House’s progress and inquire of him whether we can look forward to week 6 of urgency next week and what might be covered by such legislation if once again the House is put into that process. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 No decisions have as yet been made but the member may be interested to know that the previous Government took urgency 22 times in its first term in order to advance its programme in fact. We are similarly keen to advance our programme with a sense of vigour and enthusiasm.
Speaker’s Rulings — Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
Speaker’s Rulings — Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
[Volume:658;Page:7371] 
Thursday 22 October 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yesterday the Hon Dr Nick Smith raised with me the tabling by leave of a document. When seeking leave members should provide an accurate but succinct description of the document’s content if possible indicating its author the publisher and the media in which it has published and when. These are not absolute requirements as they will not be appropriate for all documents that members seek to table by leave. However as far as possible I have endeavoured to encourage members to provide this type of information in order that the House can make an informed judgment about whether leave should be granted. 
The particular document to which the Hon Dr Nick Smith referred was described as a statement by an Australian senator “containing a summary of the changes put forward by the Liberal Opposition and the critique by the Labour Government of those changes.” The actual document tabled was a very brief piece from a news website. It quoted the senator saying: “there’s not a bottomless pit of money for an emissions trading scheme” but contained no real summary or analysis of changes put forward by the Liberal Opposition. From the description given members were entitled to think that something more informative would be forthcoming. 
I ask members to take care when describing documents. The House makes its judgment on whether a document should be tabled on the basis of the description given. The House is entitled to an accurate description. Where the House grants leave for a document to be tabled it is the responsibility of the member to whom the leave is granted to present the document to the Clerk before the end of the sitting day. The Clerk is not expected to scrutinise the documents tabled. If on the face of it they match the leave granted they are accepted. 
I caution members seeking leave to table documents. If a member given leave to table a document deliberately misleads the House by delivering to the Clerk a substantially different document a contempt is committed. The granting of leave to table a document is one of the valued practices of the House. Members should be careful not to abuse it. Its purpose is to inform debate by making available to members documents that would otherwise not be available. Members should be careful to observe this test. Leave should not be sought to table documents that are part of the published proceedings of the House and its committees or media articles that are readily available to all members.
Quinn Paul: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6528] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I have to say that I had not intended to speak at all on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill because I know that we are in very capable and outstanding hands under the leadership of Nikki Kaye Sam Lotu-Iiga John Carter and the Minister for Local Government Rodney Hide who are doing an outstanding job as we work our way through this bill. There is absolutely no need for me to stand. But I have sat here since the dinner break and I have to say that the quality of the debate coming from members on the Opposition side of the Chamber does the Committee a total injustice. They should be crucified for the quality of the debate. 
I have listened to most of the debate. This morning right at the start at 9 o’clock I sat in my office listening to the Opposition. The main focus of its attack this morning and last night was about our not listening to the people. Those members were critical of members on this side of the Chamber because supposedly we were not listening to the people. I ask them in response how the previous Labour Government got the name “nanny State”. Why was your Government known as the nanny State? Because you told people how to do everything. You listened to no one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
PAUL QUINN 
: Those members listened to no one. Numerous examples littered the 9 years of that administration. It reached its nadir in the Electoral Finance Act which was brought in under Lynne Pillay’s chairmanship of the Justice and Electoral Committee. She knows all about ramming legislation through the House and not listening. 
The other matter to do with Opposition members that I have observed in this debate is that all their objections are someone else’s bandwagon that they have picked up. Last night Hone Harawira gave an outstanding contribution to this debate. He noted that the only time that Labour came on board on the Maori seats and tried to claim them as its own was when it thought it might be on to a winner. We also saw that last week in the debate on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Those members had nothing to contribute then finally they thought they would object to the provisions to do with trees. And we had the Hone Harawira experience in terms of the Maori seats. The lesson is that because those members have no vision of their own and no free thought they react—they react. 
Then we had the contribution from the previous speaker Dr Rajen Prasad on social well-being. We had PC claptrap about social well-being. Can I say—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Shh! 
PAUL QUINN 
: Are members listening? Please could I have a bit of quiet; those members should listen to Rajen. Social well-being in my terms is that people are happy and proud of their city. They are proud of their city when they have good transport. They are proud of their city when they are well led. They are proud of their city when they have pathways. They are proud of their city when the sewerage system works.
Hutchison Paul: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6551] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I want to focus on an area where there has not been much focus at all and that is the Local Government Commission powers. Once this bill is enacted the functions and powers of the Local Government Commission will become increasingly important and increasingly relevant to everyone in this Chamber let alone to everyone in the new Auckland unitary authority. The commentary on the bill noted that “The bill would empower the commission to undertake consultation before determining the city’s boundaries but does not specify a process or require any particular person to be consulted.”; nor are there specific resources as I understand it. I make a plea and would urge that the Local Government Commission have adequate resources and adequate powers to be able to consult fully because its function of sorting out not only the northern and southern boundaries but the wards and the boards is going to be extremely important and probably extremely contentious. 
I note that the majority report considers that the southern boundary of the city should remain as it is in the bill. The commentary went on to state: “The majority of us … believe that there is no need to amend the provisions governing the partition of Franklin though we urge the commission to consider carefully retaining all of Pukekohe and Waiuku as part of the Auckland region rather than splitting them each in two.” Once again I put on record that the Local Government Commission has that possibility and is able to do that freely and without difficulty. 
But I would go further than that. I believe undoubtedly with the way that this bill has currently ended up in terms of the southern boundary that catchment issues Treaty issues and development issues have overridden community interest issues to a certain extent. Therefore I would very much urge the Local Government Commission to have flexibility in relation to the boundaries that are set out in this bill. There is the example of Buckland—200 metres from Pukekohe. I was there on Saturday afternoon helping to open the bowling season for the Buckland Bowling Club. Mr Mark Gosche’s mum was there. She said to me that the people there want to be in Pukekohe even though the Local Government Commission at present probably would not have that amount of flexibility. I think it is very important that the interpretation that it is able to exercise is fairly flexible. I want to put that on record so that when the commission goes about its very difficult task it is reminded that Parliament is basically in agreement with that because the community of interest is very important wherever one is in the vast region of the new Auckland regional authority. 
I will make some comments on Part 3 “Transitional arrangements” and I do not think that anyone has talked about this before. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I did. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well that is excellent. The member realised just how important this issue is.
Kaye Nikki: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Kaye Nikki: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6566] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 This debate was supposed to be about hope and the future of Auckland but what is very clear is that tonight we have seen amendments from the Labour Party that are about scaremongering. Section 97 of the Local Government Act protects the assets of the people of Auckland. Mr Twyford is all about scaremongering. 
The people of Auckland never heard from Labour members tonight about the regional infrastructure that is to be delivered finally to the people of Auckland. They did not hear speeches from Labour members about urban design. They did not hear speeches from Labour members about local representation on the local boards—
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6558] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I am sorry to again have to correct the Labour members. Ms Chadwick gave a speech about the Shand report. She said she went to see this person to talk with him about the Shand report and about how good it was. It was not a bad report actually. What was sad about the Shand report was that the previous Labour Government did nothing with it. It spent the money and got the Shand report in 2007 then sat on it and did nothing. 
I also have to say that Ms Chadwick has got herself in a terribly confused state at this time of night. I do not know what she has been up to but the Shand report had no mention of Maori seats whatsoever. So quite how she had a conversation about the Shand report that included talk about Maori seats I do not know. What we are discovering— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I didn’t say Maori seats. The member is misreporting what I said. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I can point the member to her  
Hansard 
. She has now forgotten what she said 5 minutes ago in her speech. She can go straight to her  
Hansard 
 and see that she was discussing how the Shand report had mention of Maori seats. It did not; it was about rating. The report was nothing to do with Maori seats. It is a pointed reminder of another thing— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What an ignorant Minister. He should just listen for a change. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Maybe the Hon Trevor Mallard along with Mr Phil Goff should work their apologies a bit harder. They should apologise for trying to recreate history because that is what that MP Steve Chadwick just did.
Henare Tau: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6511] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to say three words to Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition: “haters and wreckers”. Do Opposition members remember the phrase “haters and wreckers”? It came from the previous Prime Minister Helen Clark. Why have Opposition members now come over all like marshmallows about Maori rights Pacific Island people’s rights and Asian people’s rights—about “rights” this and “rights” that? It does not work and it does not wash. 
I turn to Mr Boscawen and make a point about what he said about Maori being elected to councils. In a way he is right but in a way he is absolutely far from the truth—and so I might add is the Labour Party. Not once has Labour grasped the issue of Maori representation. It is not just about getting a dark horse or a dark face on the council—someone who just happens to have Maori genealogy. It is not about that at all; it is about being able to stand in an election on a Maori kaupapa a Maori agenda. That is the real difference. Yes I supported—and I still support—the Maori seat idea based on that view. But because it is under a first-past-the-post system I think we should have had Maori representation and Maori seats. 
Everybody in this Committee knows— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Is he going to vote for it? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Everybody in this Committee apart from the person who just turned up from playcentre—or is it  
Play School 
—knows that this is a team effort. There is no “I” in team and I am a team player. If I get outvoted then that is that: the team wins. I will take one for the team. 
I turn now to something that really worries me about the kaupapa we are talking about. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The kaupapa of the Dirty Dog glasses. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh yes. Dirty Dog is New Zealand - made. 
George Hawkins is a doyenne and a longstanding supporter and member of the Labour Party. He was a Minister in the previous Government. He brought to the House an amendment that not even he would agree upon. He just threw it in. The amendment was to extend the boundaries to the south side of the Waikato River right down to where it begins. That is what the amendment proposed even though Mr Twyford told us he withdrew it. If that is the sort of research and skill base the Labour Party is relying on then thank God National won the last election with help from ACT United Future and the Maori Party. I guarantee that if we had had another 3 years of George Hawkins and his mates we would have been in dire straits. We would have been so far up the creek it would not have been funny. 
The new member for Mt Albert David Shearer who spoke earlier still thinks he is in Basra Kabul or somewhere other than Mt Albert. The fact remains that the number of people in each ward will basically be commensurate with what we have now in some of our electorate seats. He bemoaned the fact that one person will have to look after the issues and aspirations of all those people. But it is OK for Parliament to have the same number—
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6475] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I first of all acknowledge the work of Dr Paul Hutchison in helping us with the issue of the southern boundary and in working through it. 
I am puzzled by the Labour Party. On the one hand it does not support the super-city but I wonder whether Mr Phil Twyford— 
Hon Member 
: Who? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: —Phil Twyford will vote for this amendment to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. This amendment is in the name of the Hon George Hawkins and it intends to adjust the southern boundary. I want to share this amendment with members. This is what the Labour Party wants for Auckland and for New Zealand. The amendment refers to Part 3 clause 18. It states: “Delete (2)(a) and insert the following—”. Members should stay with me because I want Mr Phil Twyford to be very careful about whether he and the Labour Party will be voting for the Hon George Hawkins’ amendment. It inserts the following: “(a) ensure that the southern boundary of Auckland be established …”; I tell Dr Hutchison to wait for it— 
Phil Twyford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I think you will find that the honourable member is referring to an amendment that has been withdrawn some time ago. I would like him to correct his statement. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure that is a point of order but perhaps it is helpful for the members. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I can see why they wanted to withdraw it; I asked the Hon George Hawkins whether he was sure that he wanted to do it. 
Let me explain what the Labour Party’s plan was. It was to “ensure that the southern boundary of Auckland be established south of the current southern Franklin district … boundary and follows as closely as practicable the boundary of the Waikato River catchment …”. Officials have told me that that would include all of Taupo. The Labour Party were moving an amendment to include Taupo in the super-city and it would have included Tongariro National Park all of Hamilton and Tokoroa. I am sorry that Simon Bridges is not here because it included Tauranga as well. 
George Hawkins and the Labour Party—until I rescued them from the embarrassment—were moving that amendment. I ask Mr Twyford what made him change his mind. What saw the Labour Party decide that Hamilton Taupo Tokoroa and Tauranga should not be part of this governance super-city in Auckland? Given that the Labour Party has been so vehement in its criticism of the Auckland super-city and what the Government is doing why on earth would it want to include Taupo Hamilton Tongariro National Park Tokoroa Cambridge and Tauranga in the Auckland Council? I have to say that it sums up the contribution we are having from the Labour Opposition. I just wish we had a better Opposition because it would make us an even better Government.
Beaumont Carol: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Beaumont Carol: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6468] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Before we broke for lunch I was talking about the need for Auckland MPs to be engaged in this debate. There has been a sad lack of engagement by Auckland MPs. In particular I really hope that Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga the MP for Maungakiekie will show some interest in this matter by taking a call. Local government is hugely important to the people of that electorate. 
Earlier on I was talking about the Asian Advisory Board and speaking in favour of that amendment which has been put up by my colleague Raymond Huo. The electorate of Maungakiekie is an interesting example of just how diverse the Auckland region is. Let me tell members about it. The population described as Asian—a very large category of course—numbers 22.3 percent. It is a very significant group. It is made up primarily of Indian and Chinese people. Pacific peoples make up 19 percent of the electorate. I am making the point that diversity is very very marked in Auckland and perhaps some members are not familiar with that.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6467] 
12.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: What conditions must be met before it is permissible to lease a home from a family trust for use as a ministerial residence? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Minister responsible for Ministerial Services) 
: 
 I refer to the member to the answer given on my behalf last week. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: If the Hon Bill English has no pecuniary interest in his ministerial residence then how come the email I have here dated 19 March shows Mr English telling Ministerial Services which bank account to put the money into? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is a legal test as to whether someone has a pecuniary interest and Mr English has no pecuniary interest. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I seek leave to table the email referred to in my previous supplementary question containing the half-line that says: “the Minister has asked me to advise you of the correct account for the rent.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Has the Minister been advised that a request for an additional $20 per week of cleaning allowance was made by or on behalf of Mr English on 5 December—the day Treasury told Mr English that Government expenditure had to be seriously cut—and that by 10 February Mr English had managed to claim cleaning costs even in excess of the new higher allowance? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: As is so often the case with Mr Hodgson he is a week behind the story—it was in the paper last week. No I was not advised of that because it is an operational matter that Ministerial Services would conduct on my behalf. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Has the Minister sought or received advice as to why the Hon Bill English claims publicly to have removed himself from the family trust while still in Opposition but his house title was not changed until he had been the Minister of Finance for almost 4 months? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is really getting bad—that was in the paper 2 months ago. But anyway I guess if you are desperate you ask those questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I have not sought advice in that area. The test is quite simple: it is whether the member has a pecuniary interest. He does not. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he think Mr English backdated changes to his trust deed so he could claim publicly that somehow he did not do it all for the money? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he now think it is wise that the English family trust deed be made public in the interests of transparency or indeed the minutes of the trust meetings or must the public continue to take the Hon Bill English at his word? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I do not think that is a good idea and I certainly do take the member at his word. I caution the member that if he wants to have an open disclosure of every trust document and every superannuation document of every single member of Parliament it would be a very interesting road to go down.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6466] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document in relation to question No.10. It is a regional breakdown of the number of State houses up for sale in each area broken down by Housing New Zealand Corporation administrative regions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The source of the document? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is an email from the Minister’s office. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.