edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5945] 
7.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports if any has he received on the Government’s progress at moving New Zealanders off benefits and into work? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House that Government policies like Working for Families and Work and Income’s new service approach are continuing to have success in assisting people to move off benefits and into work. In the year from September 2005 to September 2006 the total number of people on benefits fell by a further 10000. This is one of the reasons why under this Labour-led Government we have the highest-ever levels of labour-force participation and record low levels of unemployment at 3.6 percent. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What have been the changes in the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: In the year to September 2006 the number of people receiving the domestic purposes benefit fell by over 5000. This was nearly all accounted for by a drop in the number of sole parents on domestic purposes benefits which in the year to September fell from 97796 to 92148. 
Judith Collins 
: Has the Minister seen reports showing that the number of sickness and invalids beneficiaries has increased by 50 percent since his Government came to office; and if he has why are sickness and invalids beneficiary numbers increasing despite his numerous employment assistance programmes? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The member will be pleased to hear that over the past 6 years more than 800000 people have left the unemployment benefit. Of those— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about the sickness benefit? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Wait up ugly! Of those people only one in 11 or 9 percent have transferred to the sickness benefit. I also remind members that sickness and invalids benefit beneficiaries are people certified by doctors as being in need of Government support. 
Heather Roy 
: Why when—as the Minister states—the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit has dropped by over 5000 or around 5.2 percent from 2001 to 2006 have the debts owed by domestic purposes benefit beneficiaries increased by more than $15 million over this time? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I remind the member that we have a zero tolerance policy on debt fraud but the reason for the increase in the figure according to my advice is that recoverable debts are also being included in that total.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
[Volume:634;Page:5943] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Further to the matter I raised with you earlier today I have now had our office send down to the House a copy of a press release that you released last Thursday in which you said that you therefore require the parliamentary parties to consider the two reports—that is your report and the Auditor-General’s report— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt but I will be giving that report at the appropriate time. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Today? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes of course. I said I would and I told you that before—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is entitled to seek clarification. 
Question time resumed.
Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
Points of Order — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
[Volume:634;Page:5943] 
Points of Order 
Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Further to the matter I raised with you earlier today I have now had our office send down to the House a copy of a press release that you released last Thursday in which you said that you therefore require the parliamentary parties to consider the two reports—that is your report and the Auditor-General’s report— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt but I will be giving that report at the appropriate time. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Today? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes of course. I said I would and I told you that before—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is entitled to seek clarification. 
Question time resumed.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5940] 
3.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What initiatives has the Government implemented to ensure all New Zealanders have access to affordable primary health care? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In addition to our work to lower the cost of seeing a doctor for all families the Labour-led Government’s extra investment in general practices that charge very low fees has proven to be more successful than originally expected. Two hundred and twelve practices have taken up the new funding. That is a higher number than the 166 projected to do so. Most of those practices serve high-need communities and I am delighted that the Government has been able to assist in ensuring their financial stability. 
Darien Fenton 
: What will the impact of the very low fees initiative be for patients? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The initiative is being implemented primarily to support general practices that charge low fees not to lower fees for patients. However the Government’s investment does mean that over 7600 New Zealanders will have secure access to doctors’ visits at a cost of no more than $15 for adults $10 for those aged under 18 and nothing at all for those aged under 6. From 1 July next year all New Zealanders will have access to low-cost primary health care. That is what a Government can achieve when it puts the health of families before reckless tax cuts. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What work if any has the Ministry of Health done towards ensuring that the mean amount charged for general practitioner visits for children under 6 is zero given that some parents face charges of up to $45 for a service that is supposed to be free? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is true that National with help from New Zealand First as I recall it long ago introduced zero fees for under-6-year-olds. Regrettably it managed to get the contracting wrong and as a result of that a number of doctors—not too many—charge more than zero. The median level is zero but the mean level is more than zero and this funding will reduce it a little.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5938] 
1. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What if anything is being done by the Department of Labour to ensure we have a pathology workforce that is able to meet our needs? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 There is a worldwide shortage of pathologists. Pathology is listed on the Department of Labour’s long-term skill shortage list meaning that New Zealand employers can recruit without the need for a specific labour-market test. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister concerned about the prospect of a significant loss to New Zealand of competent experienced staff resulting from the decision of the three Auckland district health boards to change the provider of community laboratory services given that significant numbers of staff and pathologists have indicated publicly that they would rather move overseas than work for the new provider; if she is not concerned why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I share the member’s obvious concern about the loss of any skilled New Zealand workers and particularly about those who would leave permanently. Could I refer the member to an answer given by the Minister of Health who reported to the House that the evidence that he was presented with was that our pathology workforce was growing. He further invited the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia to present him with any evidence to the contrary which he would then consider. I invite the member to do the same. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What reports has she received about the growth of the health workforce in the last 7 years? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: New Zealand has a hard-working world-class and growing health workforce. There are 4000 more nurses and 1000 more doctors working in our public hospitals than there were in 2000. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister consider a cut from 645 fulltime-equivalent skilled jobs in an established laboratory to around 450 in a phantom laboratory—a laboratory that does not yet exist—to be more of a reduction in profit or of a blatant cut in the skilled workforce of this country? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The comparison the member has made is not between apples and apples. My understanding is that the total number in the workforce regardless of who held the contract would have been reduced because of the requirement in the contract for a significant reduction in collection points. 
Peter Brown 
: Does she believe that the method of awarding a tender to a phantom tenderer and the impact of that on the staff are good ways to treat skilled professional people? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I will make two points if I may in regard to that question. The first is that this is an existing Australian-based company and secondly the tendering process is now a matter of judicial review so it would be preferable for me to make no further comment.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Reimbursement of Expenditure 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Reimbursement of Expenditure 
[Volume:634;Page:5938] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can you clarify for the House that the situation now is that firstly the law makes it clear that no payment is necessary so New Zealand First for example does not have to make any repayments; and secondly there is no provision for Parliament to recognise parties that do make repayments and therefore it becomes just a matter of discussion between the Parliamentary Service which of course does not publicise these things and the party concerned? Or does the Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service make some public statement? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I think I can assist the House in this. It is not the Speaker’s responsibility to attend to any of those matters.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Reimbursement of Expenditure 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Reimbursement of Expenditure 
[Volume:634;Page:5937] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Yesterday as you are aware Parliament passed legislation to validate various previously questionable expenditures relating to the 2005 election. A consequence of the discussions on that is that a number of parties have indicated they will refund moneys to the Parliamentary Service. Can you tell us what your process will be for reporting to the House when parties are making such payments? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I can indicate to the House that I have indicated that I will report on whether parties intend to reimburse. I intend to do that at the appropriate time. After I have done that I intend to take no further action. That is up to the parties themselves. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s a bloody cover-up. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is no authority for the Speaker to do anything more than I have said. So please refrain from commenting on my rulings if you wish to remain in the Chamber for the rest of the day.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Ministerial Responsibility—Questions for Oral Answer 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Ministerial Responsibility—Questions for Oral Answer 
[Volume:634;Page:5937] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before the House comes to questions for oral answer I remind members that last Wednesday I indicated that I would examine replies given by the Minister of Education in answer to questions about reports he had received relating to changes in funding provided to independent schools. 
The practice members have adopted of asking whether a Minister has received reports has resulted in a reasonably broad interpretation of ministerial responsibility. This broad interpretation allowed in questions flows through to the replies. A Minister in reply may indicate any report he or she has received. These may be official reports but the Minister in replying is not restricted to official reports. However the reports that are the subject of a reply must relate to the subject matter of the question and to some matter for which the Minister is responsible. 
Speaker’s ruling 155/4 establishes that in replying to a question about a report the Minister can set out what is in the report. The Minister may include statements from reports in his or her reply in the same way that statements may be included in questions. 
On Wednesday the Minister in his replies addressed reports from the National Party. The Minister was entitled to do so in so far as they related to education policy. However the Minister has no responsibility for the National Party policies contained in those reports. It is not in order for the Minister to give an opinion about those policies or to be hypothetical about their implications.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:634;Page:5937] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the first reading of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill and to the remaining stages of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill the Sports Anti-Doping Bill the Communications Legislation Bill the Insolvency Law Reform Bill and the Business Law Reform Bill.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Republic of South Africa—Deputy President 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Republic of South Africa—Deputy President 
[Volume:634;Page:5937] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Her Excellency Ms Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka the Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that she be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Ms Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka accompanied by the Minister of Customs entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Points of Order — Election Advertising—Reimbursement of Expenditure 
Points of Order — Election Advertising—Reimbursement of Expenditure 
[Volume:634;Page:5937] 
Points of Order 
Election Advertising—Reimbursement of Expenditure 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Yesterday as you are aware Parliament passed legislation to validate various previously questionable expenditures relating to the 2005 election. A consequence of the discussions on that is that a number of parties have indicated they will refund moneys to the Parliamentary Service. Can you tell us what your process will be for reporting to the House when parties are making such payments? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I can indicate to the House that I have indicated that I will report on whether parties intend to reimburse. I intend to do that at the appropriate time. After I have done that I intend to take no further action. That is up to the parties themselves. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s a bloody cover-up. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is no authority for the Speaker to do anything more than I have said. So please refrain from commenting on my rulings if you wish to remain in the Chamber for the rest of the day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can you clarify for the House that the situation now is that firstly the law makes it clear that no payment is necessary so New Zealand First for example does not have to make any repayments; and secondly there is no provision for Parliament to recognise parties that do make repayments and therefore it becomes just a matter of discussion between the Parliamentary Service which of course does not publicise these things and the party concerned? Or does the Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service make some public statement? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I think I can assist the House in this. It is not the Speaker’s responsibility to attend to any of those matters.
Speaker’s Rulings — Ministerial Responsibility—Questions for Oral Answer 
Speaker’s Rulings — Ministerial Responsibility—Questions for Oral Answer 
[Volume:634;Page:5937] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Ministerial Responsibility—Questions for Oral Answer 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before the House comes to questions for oral answer I remind members that last Wednesday I indicated that I would examine replies given by the Minister of Education in answer to questions about reports he had received relating to changes in funding provided to independent schools. 
The practice members have adopted of asking whether a Minister has received reports has resulted in a reasonably broad interpretation of ministerial responsibility. This broad interpretation allowed in questions flows through to the replies. A Minister in reply may indicate any report he or she has received. These may be official reports but the Minister in replying is not restricted to official reports. However the reports that are the subject of a reply must relate to the subject matter of the question and to some matter for which the Minister is responsible. 
Speaker’s ruling 155/4 establishes that in replying to a question about a report the Minister can set out what is in the report. The Minister may include statements from reports in his or her reply in the same way that statements may be included in questions. 
On Wednesday the Minister in his replies addressed reports from the National Party. The Minister was entitled to do so in so far as they related to education policy. However the Minister has no responsibility for the National Party policies contained in those reports. It is not in order for the Minister to give an opinion about those policies or to be hypothetical about their implications.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:634;Page:5937] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the first reading of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill and to the remaining stages of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill the Sports Anti-Doping Bill the Communications Legislation Bill the Insolvency Law Reform Bill and the Business Law Reform Bill.
Visitors — Republic of South Africa—Deputy President 
Visitors — Republic of South Africa—Deputy President 
[Volume:634;Page:5937] 
Thursday 19 October 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Republic of South Africa—Deputy President 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Her Excellency Ms Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka the Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that she be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Ms Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka accompanied by the Minister of Customs entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Tisch Lindsay: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6065] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National as members have heard in the debate on the Committee stage this evening has supported most parts. However we had concerns with Part 3 Part 5 and Part 8; consequently we voted against those parts. If we reflect on National’s minority view which is set out in the commentary on the bill we see that our speakers and our members who were on the select committee have identified that: “The centrepiece of this bill is the ‘voluntary administration’ scheme which will replace the seldom-used ‘compromise’ scheme.” It is interesting to note that all submitters on that provision were unanimous in their view that unless the Government addressed the issue of priority status for the Inland Revenue Department the voluntary administration scheme would be severely compromised. With that in mind our speakers especially Pansy Wong who led the debate in this area were adamant that we had to vote against the voluntary administration provisions. 
Further we do not believe that Parliament should pass another piece of redundant legislation when there is a groundswell of opinion from practitioners who believe that the legislation will not work without the removal of the Inland Revenue Department’s priority status. 
The other point we were very mindful of was the newly introduced no-asset procedure whereby an individual can choose to enter into a scheme for 12 months in return for a write-off of $40000. We ask where the personal responsibility is—the individual responsibility—for the debts that have been incurred. 
Overall with that in mind National says that while we support some parts we will be voting against this bill. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Insolvency Bill the Companies Amendment Bill and the Insolvency (Cross-border) Bill  
divided into Insolvency Bill Companies Amendment Bill Insolvency (Cross-border) Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 61. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill without amendment and that the Committee had divided it into two bills; the Communications Legislation Bill without amendment and that the Committee had divided it into two bills; and the Insolvency Law Reform Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into two bills. 
Report adopted.
Wong Pansy: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6063] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Part 9 is about cross-border insolvency and the National Party is in favour of these provisions. Quite interestingly the commencement date for this part is a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. We were told that the reason for the flexibility through the Order in Council process was that we were waiting for Australia to enact similar legislation. 
National sees that in the current environment businesses have become increasingly global. More than that the mobility of businesspeople etc. throughout the world has become such a frequent and accepted pattern that New Zealand should implement the model law of cross-border insolvency adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on 30 May 1997. The law was also ratified and approved by the United Nations and we accept that this is a very sensible and forward-looking move. 
We support this part but I wonder whether there will be vigilant implementation of it. Although Parliament may pass legislation at times one wonders whether the application of that law will be as effective as politicians may think. 
I have an example of a recent case in point involving a sad occurrence. Last Monday in the pouring rain in Auckland a group of protestors gathered outside the Auckland Central Police Station. Those people unfortunately are a group of unsecured creditors who utilised a finance entity known as An Ying which has many subsidiaries and owns different companies under similar names. An Ying International Financial Ltd has gone into bankruptcy and a lot of the individuals involved used that organisation for transmitting money from China to New Zealand. Some have used the company for foreign currency exchanges. 
One person in the group told me that he had just transmitted money but was informed that because of the large sum involved the transfer would take about 3 to 5 days. Of course 5 days later he suddenly found out that the entity was no longer operating. A group of creditors applied to put An Ying International Financial Ltd into bankruptcy. The liquidator put out a statement that the repayment of money involved the ability to find out what overseas assets that company or the people responsible for the company might have. One can only live in hope that an international arrangement of this nature can be enforced effectively. 
As I said because nowadays there are so many transnational businesses our people can be quite vulnerable when individuals or businesses move to New Zealand and start businesses here. Do we actually know their reputation? That is the first challenge. The second one is whether we can believe that they are being upfront when they have insolvency problems as to whether they have assets overseas.
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6063] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 8 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Part 8 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6063] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 62 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to Part 8 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6051] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Dalziel Lianne: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6042] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I will respond to a couple of points that Pansy Wong has made. She has referred to students. Because students will not be adjudged bankrupt because of non-payment of their student debts it has been decided student debt should not be provable or dischargeable within the no-asset procedure. Therefore it is not an issue as the member has indicated. I think the member should refer to the fact that summary instalment orders are now being made far more accessible in terms of the cap being raised from $12000 to $40000 total unsecured debt and I think a lot more individuals will take the summary instalment order option rather than go to the no-asset procedure. 
I am interested that the National Party opposes an alternative to bankruptcy for individuals with minimal debt and few assets who have no means to repay the debt. This measure acknowledges that individuals cannot avoid bankruptcy and that the punitive deterrent element is disproportionate and totally irrelevant to these individuals. It gives debtors a fresh start it provides safeguards against abuse of the procedure and it minimises the cost to the State. I think this is a win-win. 
The other point the member has made that I think does not stand up to any scrutiny is that this will encourage those who offer credit to people who cannot afford to pay back the amount of credit they have been offered. It will make them think twice. They will have to think very carefully about extending a person’s credit card limit without a request even having come from the individual. Pansy Wong does not have constituents so she does not understand this. But I have constituents who come into my office and show me letters from their banks stating that their credit card limit has been extended without an application having come from the individual. I do not think it is right and proper that we have people offering credit left right and centre without any realistic prospect that people will be able to pay it. I think this will make creditors a lot more careful about offering credit to people who cannot afford to pay.
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6041] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6037] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 2)  
divided into Telecommunications Amendment Bill Radiocommunications Amendment Bill 
 pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper60. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Gosche Mark: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Gosche Mark: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6033] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hodgson Pete: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6031] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am very happy to put the document on the Table. It is already on the Table and Pansy Wong has already seen it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you.
Wong Pansy: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6031] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Standing Order 368 “Quoting documents” states: “Whenever a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs a member may on a point of order require the Minister to lay the document on the Table. The Minister must then lay the document on the Table unless it is of a confidential nature.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member requesting— 
PANSY WONG 
: I am seeking leave for that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member cannot seek leave but she can request that it be done. 
PANSY WONG 
: I can request it? OK.
Robertson H V Ross: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6030] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You cannot seek leave for the Minister to do that. It is up to the Minister whether he wishes to do so. It is an official State document and you can request it but you cannot seek leave for the Minister to do that.
Wong Pansy: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6030] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister is reading from a letter that is quite important to our deliberation so I seek leave for the Minister to table it.
Hodgson Pete: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Communications Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6030] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution to the debate on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Communications not that I am myself a person with great expertise in this matter I might say. Following on from a contribution from Pansy Wong and perhaps National Party colleagues prior to her—I was not listening to the debate earlier—and certainly subsequent to her it seems that the National Party is unaware of some recent developments. If I can give the tenor of those to the House it might help progress the debate. 
My colleague the Minister of Communications met with David Thompson chairman of the Radio Frequency Users Association last Monday and sent him a letter last Wednesday. If I put into the public record a couple of paragraphs from that letter it may help. I will give the essence of it: “I have already agreed that the issue of security of tenure for radio licences should be addressed urgently commencing with the release of a discussion paper.” He then goes on to point out that the discussion paper is due to come out later this year with decisions in June of 2007. The letter continues importantly: “In the interim period prior to the outcome of the discussion paper process being known you may be assured that there are no plans to announce any further changes to the spectrum allocations in relation to land mobile bands (as set out in Public Information Brochure 21). I will seek to confirm this through a statement of general policy of Government under section 112 of the Radiocommunications Act 1989.” 
I think that might answer the questions of Pansy Wong and other colleagues about whether the Government has a secret agenda. This letter has gone to David Thomson and I am happy that the essence of the letter is in the House.
Robertson H V Ross: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6021] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that Part 1 be agreed to. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Mr Chairman— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Sorry? The member was calling? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Carry on. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:6020] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to.
Maharey Steve: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Maharey Steve: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:6020] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration that the committee report the bill on or before 18 December 2006 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions 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 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
referred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:6020] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time.
Carter Chris: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 
Carter Chris: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 
[Volume:634;Page:6004] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Acting Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I seek leave from the House to correct some information I gave in answering question No. 10 today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: In replying to a supplementary question today on question No. 10 I mentioned the increase in security guard numbers in courts around New Zealand and said they had gone up from 18 to 53 in total. I should have said that the number had gone up from 35 to 53 an increase of 18.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 
[Volume:634;Page:6004] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 10 to Minister 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Acting Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I seek leave from the House to correct some information I gave in answering question No. 10 today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: In replying to a supplementary question today on question No. 10 I mentioned the increase in security guard numbers in courts around New Zealand and said they had gone up from 18 to 53 in total. I should have said that the number had gone up from 35 to 53 an increase of 18.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Dioxin Release Ivon Watkins-Dow—Report 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Dioxin Release Ivon Watkins-Dow—Report 
[Volume:634;Page:6002] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Sue Kedgley seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 recent developments in the ongoing health impacts of dioxin released from the Ivon Watkins-Dow plant at Paritutu in New Plymouth. The recent developments involve the Leonard report commissioned by TV3. This does not involve ministerial responsibility. The Ministry of Health has said it will look into claims that significant mistakes were made in the study of dioxin contamination in New Plymouth. The ministry’s comments relate to events that are likely to occur. There is therefore no particular case of recent occurrence involving administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government that would give grounds for a debate on this matter today. The application is declined.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5998] 
9.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Has she received any reports on the effectiveness of ACC’s falls-prevention programmes for older people involving tai chi? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes I have seen an evaluation of the tai chi programmes offered by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). The evaluation was done by the Auckland University of Technology and shows significant improvements in the strength and balance of participants. An evaluation of Christchurch classes shows a 63 percent reduction in falls with 97 percent of participants having improved confidence as a result of the reduced fear of falling. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has she received any other reports concerning proposals that would jeopardise successful injury prevention programmes? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. I have seen reports proposing that the ACC scheme be replaced with a competitive market-based scheme. It is well accepted among injury prevention experts that successful injury prevention depends on collaboration and coordination. National’s proposal to privatise the scheme would do exactly the opposite and undo the successes this Government has achieved.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5996] 
7.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: What is the Government doing to help small to medium sized enterprises in New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 Today I am releasing the Government’s response to the second report of the Small Business Advisory Group. The response shows that the advisory group and the Government share a vision on how to improve the business environment for small to medium sized businesses. The Quality Regulation Review which I announced in May this year will also produce results around several of the recommendations including improving the quality of regulatory impact statements. The Government is also committed to a 2-year trial of the business cost calculator which will identify explicitly the administrative costs of proposed regulation and any alternatives. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What other aspects of the Small Business Advisory Group report has the Government responded to favourably? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Ten of the 12 recommendations have received a positive response from the Government although with both exceptions the Government is looking at whether there are other ways of reducing compliance costs such as the addition of an online holiday calculator to the Department of Labour website. The Accident Compensation Corporation and the Inland Revenue Department have already announced changes in the way they deal with minor misdemeanours and unintentional mistakes. Improved processes for hazardous substances and new organisms controls came into operation in July this year. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker tena tatou katoa. Has the Minister had reports on the potential for the creation and support of businesses in the East Coast area—that is the area from Kaiti in the south to Potaka in the north; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Unfortunately that was not included as one of the recommendations from the Small Business Advisory Group although I will say to the member that one of the issues it did raise was the question of champions within individual Government departments. Te Puni Kokiri and the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs were two departments where the group was concerned that there was proper information being given on the development and promotion of small business.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5992] 
4.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What reports if any has he received on trends in student loan borrowing over the past year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 The annual report shows that student loan borrowing has tended to reduce over the past 4 years. The average time to repay a student loan has dropped from around 10 years 4 years ago to around 9 years today and that trend has continued over the last year. 
Moana Mackey 
: What reports has he seen on the effects of policy changes on student loan borrowing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a number of reports suggesting that borrowing will skyrocket and blow out following the introduction of interest-free loans. They were from Mr Key and from Mr English. In fact the predictions of the outstanding loan balance for 2009-10—in some 3 years’ time—that were made this June were only 1 percent higher than those made in June last year before the announcement of the interest-free student loan policy. The increase in cost is about 10 percent of the estimates made by National Party supporters before the last election. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain the forecast on page 41 of the annual report that shows that borrowings will go up—in the officials’ forecast—by at least 16 percent? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There has been some increase in borrowings and that is related in part to student numbers. If the member cares to look at it he will find that the increase is a tiny fraction of that forecast by himself and National Party supporters outside the House before the last election with figures of up to $1 billion being used at that time.
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Behaviour in Chamber—Bob Clarkson Visitors—Hungarian Honorary Consul and Members of Hungarian Community 
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Behaviour in Chamber—Bob Clarkson Visitors—Hungarian Honorary Consul and Members of Hungarian Community 
[Volume:634;Page:5987] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have one point in relation to my motion earlier. I think it might be appropriate on the occasion of this very important anniversary to recognise the presence with us today of the Hungarian Honorary Consul in New Zealand Klara Szentirmay and other members of the Hungarian community. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members wish to acknowledge their presence please do so. 
[ 
Applause 
]
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Behaviour in Chamber—Bob Clarkson Visitors—Hungarian Honorary Consul and Members of Hungarian Community 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Behaviour in Chamber—Bob Clarkson Visitors—Hungarian Honorary Consul and Members of Hungarian Community 
[Volume:634;Page:5987] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We note you have taken we think the unusual step of writing to Mr Clarkson to tell him that he has been out of order in holding up signs and other stuff in the House and in suggesting that he might wear a crash helmet in the House today. We would hope that you have written to Mr Mallard the Deputy Prime Minister the Prime Minister the Labour whips and everybody else here who have been waving signs around this House quite liberally in the last couple of weeks. We ask you to indicate to the House whether that is an action you have taken. Further we offer the view that had Mr Mallard not gone out of his way last week to be in the near vicinity of Mr Clarkson clearly Mr Clarkson would not feel the need to wear a helmet today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comment. Obviously the latter matter he raised is a matter of privilege that has been raised with me and is under consideration at the moment. The other matter was outside the Standing Orders. Members on all sides of the House from time to time raise visual signs to assist their questions or answers. Mr Clarkson’s position was in a totally different category from that.
[Volume:634;Page:5987] 
(7)asks the Speaker to convey this motion to the Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament 
. 
Motion agreed to.
[Volume:634;Page:5987] 
(6)recognises the significant contribution of the Hungarian community to the progress of New Zealand over the last 50 years; and
[Volume:634;Page:5987] 
(5)notes that over 1000 Hungarian refugees came to New Zealand after the Revolution was crushed by Soviet forces;
[Volume:634;Page:5987] 
(4)reaffirms the friendship and cooperative relations between the Governments of Hungary and New Zealand and between the Hungarian and New Zealand people;
[Volume:634;Page:5987] 
(3)welcomes the achievement of democracy in Hungary in 1989 and the progress its people have made since then;
[Volume:634;Page:5987] 
(2)expresses its condolences to the people of Hungary for those who lost their lives fighting for the cause of Hungarian freedom and independence in 1956 as well as those individuals executed by the Soviet and Hungarian authorities in the 5 years following the Revolution including Prime Minister Imre Nagy;
[Volume:634;Page:5987] 
(1)commends the Hungarian people as they mark the 50th anniversary of the October 1956 Revolution which set the stage for the democratic changes which occurred in 1989 in Hungary and other Eastern European countries;
Locke Keith: Motions — Hungarian Revolution—50th Anniversary 
Locke Keith: Motions — Hungarian Revolution—50th Anniversary 
[Volume:634;Page:5987] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That this House
Urgent Debates Declined — Dioxin Release Ivon Watkins-Dow—Report 
Urgent Debates Declined — Dioxin Release Ivon Watkins-Dow—Report 
[Volume:634;Page:6002] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Dioxin Release Ivon Watkins-Dow—Report 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Sue Kedgley seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 recent developments in the ongoing health impacts of dioxin released from the Ivon Watkins-Dow plant at Paritutu in New Plymouth. The recent developments involve the Leonard report commissioned by TV3. This does not involve ministerial responsibility. The Ministry of Health has said it will look into claims that significant mistakes were made in the study of dioxin contamination in New Plymouth. The ministry’s comments relate to events that are likely to occur. There is therefore no particular case of recent occurrence involving administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government that would give grounds for a debate on this matter today. The application is declined.