edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2290] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the difficulties that the posting of bogus material on the Internet can cause for people and the Government’s desire to review the process for take-down at the moment I wonder whether Mr Cunliffe given this experience could indicate to the House whether he will be giving a favourable submission to that inquiry in order that take-down notices can be more effectively exercised. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure what issue of order the member is seeking me to address. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Finding that it’s not a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Today I guess with members anything is going because the House is in such a boisterous mood but let us try to focus if we could on questions for oral answer.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2290] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a further personal explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. 
Hon Annette King 
: What about? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It probably is reasonable to indicate what it is in relation to. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is in relation to the matter of Twitter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation in relation to the matter of Twitter. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In my earlier personal explanation I noted that I have never been on the website Twitter and have never sent a tweet. I can further advise the House that there are a number of bogus Twitter accounts in use and in respect of my own notification was provided to Twitter on 29 March—Monday morning our time—that this was a bogus account. So it would appear that not only has the Prime Minister incorrectly used this material— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot use a personal explanation to comment on another member. It is only about his matters and I thank him for that. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the notification that was sent by our communications staff to the Twitter website notifying it that the comments were bogus. 
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.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2286] 
6.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What will be the gain in real income per hour adjusted for inflation since 1 April 2008 of a full-time worker on the minimum wage as a result of today’s increase to the minimum wage? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The member has a short memory. I answered that question on 11 February as $3.78 for a week. If he divides that figures by 40 his calculator will tell him that the answer is just under 10c an hour. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why was the recommended option in the Minister’s first Cabinet committee paper for a nil increase? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Several options were recommended to Cabinet. Cabinet decided that $12.50 was the fair minimum wage to set bearing in mind the economic conditions and that protecting jobs was our priority. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the minimum wage? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have seen several reports including one from Mr Mallard himself who said he could not commit to a large increase in the minimum wage due to the economic conditions in October last year—conditions that we know have since worsened. I have seen a report from Phil Goff demanding a rise to $13. I have seen the Labour Party’s election manifesto which promotes an increase to $12.65. Yet Labour members’ own colleague Darien Fenton has gone on to describe today’s increase as miserable and measly. I ask where the Opposition actually stands on the minimum wage. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members please—I simply cannot hear when there is quite so much noise. As I say I do not mind a boisterous question time—that is good—but this is a wee bit over the top. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why was the Minister’s recommended option in her first Cabinet paper for a nil increase? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: There were three options in the Cabinet paper: one was a nil increase one was an increase to $12.50 and one was an increase to $12.65. We had to bear in mind the economic conditions and the priority to protect jobs and not encumber businesses with extra expenses that would result in job losses. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does the Minister accept that some New Zealanders are still not being paid the minimum wage; if not why not? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I understand it between 94000 and 123000 people will actually get an increase in their wage as a result of the increase in the minimum wage. There are some New Zealanders who do not receive the minimum wage for various reasons. One reason for example is that they might be under 16 years of age. There are some breaches of the minimum wage regulations and legislation and we take that very seriously. If any workers are being exploited by unscrupulous employers we do not condone that sort of activity as the member well knows.
Bridges Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Bridges Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2286] 
5.  
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his statement made during the first reading debate of the Electoral Amendment Bill that it was his intention that all political parties and interested members of the public will have an opportunity to have input at more than one stage on the process of electoral finance reform; if so what progress has been made to date? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes I stand by that statement. Today I am releasing a milestone paper that sets out the time line for electoral finance reform. This includes three formal opportunities for the public and for political parties to have a say. In response to the second part of the question I say that today I am also releasing the scope of the electoral finance reform which will provide the framework for the issues paper. I have consulted all parties in the House on the scope paper and I thank them and their representatives for their willingness to engage. 
Simon Bridges 
: Are there any time constraints on the process of electoral finance reform? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Yes. The passage of the Electoral Amendment Bill earlier this year means that there is an interim regime in place to cover the upcoming by-election in Mt Albert. However in order to put new law into place in time for the next general election in 2011 we will need to pass legislation next year. Within that constraint we have attempted to provide as many opportunities as possible for input from the public and from political parties.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Rt Hon Helen Clark—Appointment as Head of United Nations  Development Programme 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Rt Hon Helen Clark—Appointment as Head of United Nations  Development Programme 
[Volume:653;Page:2277] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to warmly join with other colleagues who have spoken this afternoon and say on behalf of United Future how much we congratulate the Rt Hon Helen Clark on this most worthy appointment and endorse the sentiments that have been expressed. I have had the privilege of knowing Helen for just over 25 years and in that time we have worked together on a number of things and we have worked against each other on a number of things but there has been one constant throughout which I think is relevant to this appointment: Helen has always displayed a huge sense of integrity a deep sense of compassion I think a real commitment to the underdog and a determination not only to see what is right but to do what is right. I believe they are all qualities that will be critical in the role that she is about to undertake as the administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. 
Much has already been said this afternoon about the challenges that Helen will face in that role. I do not want to rehearse those; this is not the time to give lectures on one’s view of international relations. But it is the time to acknowledge that this a signal honour for a very important popular and famous New Zealander. I think it is relevant to observe that only a few weeks ago a newspaper poll installed Helen Clark as the most significant living New Zealander. I think that that is a possible explanation of why this appointment has been so widely greeted. 
Many people say many things about the United Nations and its organisations. They claim it to be inefficient unfocused and unable to deliver on objectives. If those allegations are true—and I suspect there is more than a moment of truth in them—then I also suspect very strongly that the United Nations Development Programme is about to undertake the first wave of change. I cannot conceive of the new administrator allowing the organisation to be unfocused—not to have a clear sense of purpose and a time line by which it will achieve its objectives and not to have clear directives issued to those working on its behalf of the expectations that are placed upon them. 
We like to think about New Zealanders occupying high places on the world stage and it is true that many examples can be drawn to mind. But it is also true that this appointment is the most significant appointment that a New Zealander has yet occupied on the international stage and I cannot think of a more appropriate person to take up that role than the Rt Hon Helen Clark. 
Helen you go with the blessings and the good wishes of this House the eager enthusiasm of this country to see you do well and the pride of our knowing that from this small nation such a prominent and successful person has emerged—one who will do good not just in the continuing interests of this country but on the world stage. My very best wishes to you. 
Motion agreed to.
Gilmore Aaron: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Gilmore Aaron: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2491] 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I rise to talk about the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. I will take just a few minutes to tell members a little bit about an experience of mine with trademarks. Unlike the members on the other side of the House I have had some experience with trademarks when importing and exporting products with and without trademarks— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What kinds of products? 
AARON GILMORE 
: All sorts of products—cables. I used to operate a business with about 400 staff and $100 million in exports. We used to export cables around the Pacific region. When we recently had the ability to expand into China about 18 months ago we ran into some problems. We set up a factory in China because that was the best way to get our product into China with our own trademarks. We found we had the ability to set up production in China using our own trademarks. It is a global business and a global trademark. General Cable was a multinational firm with a major company logo and trademark that was known all around the world for industrial products. It was all going fine there and when we came to importing the product from China back into New Zealand we did not have any problems; we imported the product back from China and that worked out quite well. We were importing about $5 million to $10 million a year of product. But we ran into a company that we had never heard of. After about 6 or 7 months that company started importing products and it was selling about $1 million worth a year via TradeMe using a product and a definition that was very very similar to our company’s trademark. Instead of using the initials GCC the company used the initials GCE. That is just an example of one of the things that this bill is designed to fix in many ways. 
If we can have a bill like this put in place to solve these sorts of problems then I think that would be wonderful for New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House in many ways. If it can save a number of jobs in importing in New Zealand I think it will be a good thing. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2421] 
1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Was he under the impression that John Judge was chair of the ACC board when the committee resolved to invite him to its meeting of 12 March 2009 on the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 Yes. From reports in the public arena at that time it was my impression that Mr Judge was the chairman. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did he inform the committee that Mr Judge had not been properly appointed at that time before the committee was informed of this by the Accident Compensation Corporation last week? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It would have been impossible for me to inform the committee because as I have just answered I was under the awareness that Mr Judge was in fact the chairman.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2421] 
3. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did he phone the Minister for ACC on 10 March 2009 and discuss the matter of who should attend the financial review of ACC; if so was it at the request of the Minister or the Minister’s office? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I cannot recall any phone calls made at that time but there were discussions between the Minister and me around that time. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did he call Dr Nick Smith or not? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I cannot recall any phone calls being made at that time but we did discuss the issue.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2421] 
2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Who advised him that John Judge was not available to attend the committee meeting held on 12 March 2009? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I did not ask Mr Judge to attend the meeting of 12 March so it is not about whether he was available to attend. It was agreed however that the Minister for ACC would attend the meeting and Mr Judge made quite clear at the select committee last week the reasons for his unavailability. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was the Minister for ACC speaking on the chairman’s behalf when he advised the media that he—the chairman—had been advised that Mr Judge was unavailable? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I think the question goes to whether Mr Nick Smith was speaking on my behalf—is that what the member is asking? Well in that case Mr Smith cannot speak on behalf of the committee or the committee chair.
Power Simon: Appropriation (2007/08 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
Power Simon: Appropriation (2007/08 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2475] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2007/08 Financial Review) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Hipkins Chris: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2474] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the financial review of the Department of Internal Affairs. I would like to talk in particular about Ministerial Services and about the fact that Ministerial Services employs the staff who work in Ministers’ offices who among other things organise ministerial travel and prepare draft answers to Ministers’ written questions. We know that they are paid significantly more under this National Government than they were paid under the last Labour Government so one would think we would get a higher output. I am not convinced. One of the ways that we can hold departments and Ministers to account is through the asking of written questions. I have asked many questions of the Minister of Internal Affairs which he continues to refuse to answer. He says it would take too many resources to answer them. He will not say whom he has met with and he will not say what reports he has received. I have to wonder why that is. What exactly is he trying to withhold? 
The other thing that I would like to talk about is VIP Services provided through Ministerial Services and in particular the facilitation of Ministers at airports. It would be very inappropriate would it not for a Minister to use those facilitation services provided by the Department of Internal Affairs to shepherd his or her business cronies— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Mates. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —business mates—through immigration so that they could go prospecting for business overseas for companies that the Minister himself has an interest in. 
Report noted.
Roy Eric: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2470] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have a little difficulty Mr Coleman in that it is my understanding that there is some kind of proportionality between the calls. The only call left now for National are for the Ministers in the chair. I think the Hon Kate Wilkinson rose to her feet at the same time so I will honour that call.
Roy Eric: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2428] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Just before I call the member who will have the next call I say that interjections are fine. But I ask members to look at Speakers’ ruling 61/5 which covers a running commentary. In respect of interjections the test is whether they are rare and reasonable and during the previous speech we shifted very clearly into a running commentary. I ask members to show a little bit of restraint. Interjections are fine but we will not have running commentaries.
Roy Eric: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2422] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I ask that members turn to the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government. The question is that the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the year ended 30 June 2008 be noted. I note that this report also relates to the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s financial review of Treasury so the performance in the 2007-08 financial year and current operations of Treasury may also be debated.
Roy Eric: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2421] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have quite a bit to inform the Committee of. 
The House is in Committee on the Appropriation (2007/08 Financial Review) Bill. The Standing Orders provide for the financial review debate to be the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2007/08 Financial Review) Bill. The debate comprises two distinct elements—it would be helpful if members were able to absorb this as we progress through the debate. The financial review debate commences with a debate on the annual financial statements of the Government as reported by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Once this debate is disposed of the Committee debates the individual financial reviews of departments and Offices of Parliament and non-departmental appropriations as reported on by select committees. 
Members will note that for the first time this portion of the debate includes debate on non-departmental appropriations. Members will recall that changes adopted last year to the Standing Orders provide for non-departmental appropriations—section 32A reports—to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Although the services and outputs covered by non-departmental appropriations are provided by other organisations an administering department as the name suggests has some responsibility for these appropriations and for reporting on them. A list of financial reviews and non-departmental appropriations available for debate is on the Table. 
The debate on the Government’s financial position may be fairly wide ranging but the debates on the individual financial reviews of departments and Offices of Parliament and on non-departmental appropriations should be relevant to their performance in the 2007-08 financial year and to their current operations. A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. Four hours is allowed for both elements of the financial review debate. At the conclusion of the 4 hours a single question is put on the provisions of the bill. There is no amendment or debate on this question. The Chairperson reports the bill to the House and it is set down for third reading forthwith; there is no debate on the third reading.
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2416] 
11.  
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Has he received any reports about bio-diesel production in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Yes I have. I am advised that last month Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd started to retail a B5 bio-diesel blend at the pump in the Bay of Plenty on a trial basis. The bio-diesel and the B5 blend is produced from tallow that is sourced from the meat-processing industry in New Zealand. The trial provides another chance for the fuel to be part of the choice available to motorists in a world where we are trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Has the Minister received any reports about other recent biofuel developments? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I have. I am advised that the Environmental Risk Management Authority has approved an application from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to allow E85 which is an 85 percent ethanol blend for use in New Zealand cars. The approval paves the way for flexi-fuel cars—which cost little more than an ordinary petrol vehicle—to be more widely used in New Zealand. The approval will eventually allow oil companies to offer at the pump other options for flexi-fuel vehicle owners thereby further reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Has the Minister seen any comments about the future of biofuels in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I have. When the Government moved to repeal the biofuels sales obligation last year Pete Hodgson said that it would do enormous economic damage to a burgeoning industry and that it would be the end of a biofuels industry in New Zealand. I am very pleased to announce to members today that the Opposition has been proved wrong—the biofuels industry is growing and thriving in New Zealand today. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What advice if any has the Minister had on how much more biofuels development there would be had his Government not vandalised the biofuels obligation? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member asking that question seems to be completely without any understanding of the point of having biofuels in New Zealand. The previous Labour Government could not guarantee that biofuels sold under its obligation were produced sustainably. I believe that some 40 million litres—or approaching 40 million litres—of biofuel will be produced in New Zealand this year; that is far more than was projected while the member’s Government was in office.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2416] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Yes I have. I am advised that last month Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd started to retail— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a feeling that the member read his first supplementary question not the principal question. It might help the Minister if the member read the principal question because he will not quite be quick enough to have got the answer to the supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we should sort this matter out. I ask Chris Auchinvole to actually read the question that is on the Order Paper.
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2416] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Energy and Resources. Has he received any reports about other recent biofuel developments?
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2415] 
10.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Can he confirm that as Minister of Internal Affairs he has met all the requirements of a Minister of the Crown as set out under “Conduct public duty and personal interests” in Part 2 of the  
Cabinet Manual 
? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why when I asked him last Thursday whether he was aware of issues surrounding WSBC—a company described by the director of the New Zealand Serious Fraud Office as “an associated entity”—did he advise the House: “I know nothing of these matters.” when in fact the publication TGIF Edition had questioned him on those same matters and published the Minister’s remarks in quotes on 13 February—7 weeks ago? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: The member is misquoting what I said. The question to me was: “Is the Minister aware that WSBC a company that the director of the New Zealand Serious Fraud Office described as “an associated entity” was thrown out of the Cook Islands last week and that last Friday the Minister of Finance for the Cook Islands issued a press statement praising the role of the Pacific anti - money-laundering programme; and how does that reflect on his judgment?”. I answered: “I do not know of those matters. That is a different company. The company I was involved with was WSD Global”—I then said “Risks” but meant “Markets”—“Ltd which is a New Zealand company.” There are a number of factual errors in what the member said and in fact I challenge him to repeat those comments outside the House as he has been invited to do by the media. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask members to show some courtesy to the Hon Pete Hodgson asking his question.  
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the Minister when he wrote to the Hon Murray McCully on 23 December last year regarding his forthcoming trip to India acknowledge or even allude to his shareholding in New Zealand Aviation or in WSD Global Markets Ltd or in the Indian Overseas Group; if he did not why did he not? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I did not and there was no need to do so. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Who was the Acting Minister of Internal Affairs when he was away from New Zealand between 24 February and 2 March and why can I not find any public announcement of a portfolio change for that period as is the norm? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I understand that someone was appointed in my stead. I believe it was the Hon Kate Wilkinson and I do not know why the member cannot find that.
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2414] 
9.  
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What is the Government doing to help small and medium sized enterprises? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 In early February the Prime Minister announced a range of business support measures which included the business health check website and the BIZ helpline for small to medium sized enterprises. These are difficult times for small to medium sized enterprises and the BIZ helpline is a free service that provides advisers able to answer some of the questions that people have that they perhaps cannot ask of their bank accountant or anyone else for that matter. I can report that 968 phone calls were made to the helpline in February and 980 calls in March—a 68 percent increase. That is a very large increase on the average rate from the previous 7 months. 
Melissa Lee 
: What other measures has the Government undertaken to assist small and medium sized enterprises? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Quite apart from the changes to the tax system the business advisory BIZ helpline is also available to refer businesses that wish to engage with mentors with those appropriate people to assist them. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise is paying the $100 registration fee usually charged. Since this offer was made available in February 209 firms have been referred to Business Mentors New Zealand services and 110 of those firms have contacted a business mentor. We believe that the scheme is of great value to many of those small businesses that are struggling at the present time. 
Melissa Lee 
: Has the Minister received any reports about usage of the business health check website? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes approximately 400 firms have completed online business health checks. Since the website was available 60 percent of the business health checks completed online are from firms in the Auckland region. Completing a business health check helps firms identify areas where they may be able to seek further assistance and advice is given on that basis.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2414] 
8.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Does she believe that she has a good overview of Auckland tertiary education issues? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Associate Minister for Tertiary Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Yes. I am advised that the Minister has visited the campuses of Auckland University the Auckland University of Technology and the Manukau Institute of Technology. I am also advised that the Auckland University of Technology at its own suggestion took the Minister on a short helicopter ride so she could gain a greater understanding of the population growth in Auckland the distances between tertiary sector institutions and the ways the Auckland University of Technology intends to serve different communities within the Auckland region. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Can the Minister confirm that the helicopter ride over Auckland was the result of her misunderstanding the expression “A helicopter view of the issues”? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It will certainly be clear from previous answers that it was actually the Auckland University of Technology that made that suggestion. Of course it should also be clear that the royal commissioners had to do a report on the spread-out nature of Auckland simply because it is so spread out and needs better governance. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Did the Minister take the helicopter ride over Auckland to avoid meeting with student leaders who had been trying to meet with her for some time and who in desperation had embarked on what they called “The Great Tolley Hunt: the Sounds of Silence”? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The Minister has been very active in the Auckland region visiting numerous tertiary institutions; the Auckland University of Technology was determined to ensure that she had the clearest possible insight. The Minister is focused on ensuring that students and universities get resources and not the bloated Tertiary Education Commission as was apparently the plan of the previous Government. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: I seek leave to table an article from  
Nexus 
 which I understand to be the Waikato University student newspaper entitled “The Great Tolley Hunt: the Sounds of Silence”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a statement from a student newspaper. Is there any objection to that? There is objection. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table a map of Auckland to assist— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It is a legitimate point of order. I seek leave to table a map of Auckland. She does not know the distances so we are here to help. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that the last comment he made was not in order. Leave has been sought to table a map of Auckland. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2413] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was made clear earlier by the Deputy Prime Minister—I think when he was acting for the Prime Minister—that it was normal practice for Ministers to take helicopters— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat—if the member wants to ask his questions he will resume his seat when I am on my feet. That was not a point of order.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2413] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I note the absence from the House of the Minister for Tertiary Education. I understand she is in Queenstown presumably in a helicopter. I seek leave for this question to be held over for question time tomorrow. I am seeking leave so that the Minister can return to the Chamber and answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member when making a point of order in future not to make that kind of derogatory comment about a person if he expects the point of order to be taken seriously. Leave is sought for the question to be diverted. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2412] 
7.  
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Has he received any feedback on the progress Housing New Zealand Corporation is making with the 2008-09 component of the jobs and growth stimulus package announced earlier this year? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yes. I have been advised by officials that the corporation is well on track with this year’s component of the jobs and growth stimulus package. Out of the $10 million of upgrade work injected $1.1 million worth was under way as of early March. So far 285 extra houses have been upgraded that would not have been if we had not injected the money. We are delivering for those families that we found were living in squalor and had been living in squalor for some years. 
Todd McClay 
: I will speak slowly for the benefit of the previous member for Otaki. What changes have occurred since the announcement made earlier this year? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Members will be aware that soon after this Government came to office we approved 475 net extra State houses by the end of this financial year. The stimulus package added on 69 extra State houses. Although we had targeted 475 new State houses and we announced a further 69 new State houses I asked Housing New Zealand to sharpen its pencil and now there will be 475 new State houses plus 86 new State houses on top of that. 
Todd McClay 
: I will speak even more slowly for the benefit of the previous member for Otaki. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will just ask his question. 
Todd McClay 
: How is this work being allocated to areas under housing pressure? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The Maori Party colleagues who came to me had a particular concern about particular areas of significant need across the country. For example South Auckland was of concern to them. We are adding an extra 94 houses in South Auckland by the end of this financial year and 18 of them are coming from the stimulus package. We are doing up 186 houses by the end of this financial year over and above what we would have done. We were very concerned and the Maori Party members were very concerned about tenants having lived in squalor for many years and now they are to live in decent conditions. 
Rahui Katene 
: What opportunity will there be for iwi to be involved in the jobs and growth stimulus package and what consultations have taken place with iwi to this effect? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I have met with the co-leaders of the Maori Party on a number of occasions to discuss the benefits of the stimulus package for State house tenants who are Maori and also for Maori and non-Maori tradespeople. The Maori Party members have local State house areas of concern to them and I have welcomed their bringing to my attention iwi organisations that they believe could be involved in upgrading many of the State houses and building some of the new ones. That is $101.5 million worth next year. I hope to see some Maori businesses involved in that upgrade work.
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2408] 
3.  
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he agree that the Mongrel Mob Black Power Hell’s Angels and the Headhunters are primarily criminal organisations; if not why not? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. That is why we have introduced legislation to make it easier to secure convictions against members of a criminal organisation. 
David Garrett 
: How many patched Mongrel Mob and Black Power gang members were invited to the Drivers of Crime summit held last Friday and why were they invited? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Two currently patched members attended last Friday but they did not wear any regalia. They were invited by the Minister of Maori Affairs Minister Sharples; I am advised that the Minister had been personally working with one of them to reduce youth violence in South Auckland. 
Rahui Katene 
: Has the Minister read the Parliamentary Library research paper of 3 April 2009 that identifies that “Pakeha street gangs with interests in neo-fascism and white power tendencies grew stronger particularly in Christchurch during the 1990s.” and how are these gangs being addressed within current justice sector policy? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I have not read that paper but I am familiar with the type of gang to which the member refers. The Government has swiftly introduced legislation that strengthens the existing law under section 98A of the Crimes Act and that seeks to further criminalise participation in organised criminal groups.
Worth Richard: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 2 April 
Worth Richard: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 2 April 
[Volume:653;Page:2405] 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 Last Thursday I said that the company I was involved with was WSD Global Risks Ltd. I should have said WSD Global Markets Ltd. Everything else I said was correct.
Appropriation (2007/08 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
Appropriation (2007/08 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2475] 
Appropriation (2007/08 Financial Review) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2007/08 Financial Review) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 2 April 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 2 April 
[Volume:653;Page:2405] 
Tuesday 7 April 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 5 to Minister 2 April 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 Last Thursday I said that the company I was involved with was WSD Global Risks Ltd. I should have said WSD Global Markets Ltd. Everything else I said was correct.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Removal of Chair of Board 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Removal of Chair of Board 
[Volume:652;Page:1760] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision made by the Minister for ACC to remove the chair of the board of the Accident Compensation Commission and appoint a new chair. This is a particular case of recent occurrence and it involves ministerial responsibility. Important aspects of governance are raised and future new developments of public interest are foreshadowed. Given the significance of the decision I consider that it requires the immediate attention of the House. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to move that the House take note of an matter of urgent public importance.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1823] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou Mr Deputy Speaker. For the benefit of Ms Lianne Dalziel I say that the example we used in respect of this particular issue in the second reading of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill is about the land. I used the example of some of the constituents in my area although not a lot of them are involved in such a situation. For example we believe that a whanau could potentially lose its ancestral land as a result of another person growing cannabis on a farm without the whanau’s knowledge or even consent—hopefully it would not be the consent at issue but more the knowledge. 
In the sense that there have been some precedents in the past in respect of some laws that have unfortunately alienated Maori land I placed this issue fairly and squarely in front of the Minister Simon Power. His explanation was that there are some mechanisms. It is of real concern particularly in the case of multiple-owned land where the owners live throughout the country that people may not even know that this is going on. A family member or a trust member of some kind is caught up in some sort of wheeling and dealing and all of a sudden the court has determined that some proceeds come from criminal activity. Firstly the whanau members being innocent parties do not have any knowledge of the issue. Secondly they have to apply to the court to maintain that land under their ownership when they should quite rightly have the use and ownership of that land. That is of real concern. 
I join with Ms Dalziel in the sense of asking whether there is a possibility of Supplementary Order Paper 5 adding to and benefiting the bill in one form or another in those circumstances. There should not be any doubt in the minds of anyone in this Parliament that the Maori Party is determined to protect any issues around Maori land interests. If there is any move towards the further alienation of land by any means through the courts or unwittingly then I think we certainly want to deter any thoughts about that. I seek the Minister to take a call to consider this line. For it is very important. 
It is not that we do not have other concerns about the bill of course but this is the key one. It is just one example but nevertheless its ramifications are quite far-reaching particularly around issues of land. With that as a very brief explanation I ask the Minister to perhaps take some consideration of how the bill might be added to. Kia ora.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1818] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I do not intend to take particularly long. As the previous speaker said the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill is very clear. It sets out its intentions very clearly and the amendments that have been made at the Health Committee are excellent; they clarify a couple of matters very well. 
It is only natural I suppose that speakers have drawn a comparison between the previous bill the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill and this one. As we were debating the previous bill a number of statistics and points of view were quoted from the health industry and the justice sector and all of that information is brought together by the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC). I think that is one of the most important things about this organisation—it allows a reasoned evidence-based sensible debate around alcohol issues to take place. That is why it is fantastic that we can tidy up the funding mechanism. It is got out of the way it is nice and easy and ALAC can focus on the good work does in supporting the kinds of issues we have heard debated this evening. There is universal support for the bill although we heard a number of slightly different opinions all with some evidence to back them up. That is excellent to see. 
This is one of the benefits of treating alcohol in the way that we do. We regulate it. It is a legal substance but it is regulated. That allows us to include the ALAC levy within the taxation of alcohol. It provides for the funding of an organisation like ALAC so that we can look seriously at the issues and at the balance as the member opposite mentioned between liberty and responsibility. I just add my support to the bill and to its speedy progress.