Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:15992] 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy Rebalancing—Reports 
1. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the economy moving away from Government spending housing speculation and borrowing and towards savings and exporting? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 This morning the Reserve Bank issued its Monetary Policy Statement for December. It confirms what I have been saying about the economy in recent months. The near-term outlook for GDP growth has softened. Beyond this higher export volumes and the Canterbury earthquake repairs are expected to push growth above the Reserve Bank’s previous forecast. For example it now expects GDP to grow by 3.4 percent in the year to March 2012. It also expects inflation to remain subdued after a temporary one-off spike from the GST increase and forecasts continuing falls in unemployment. 
Craig Foss 
: What did the Reserve Bank’s forecast say about national savings? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It confirmed what I think we all know which is that New Zealand needs to lift its levels of national savings and it pointed to some encouraging early signs. It notes that the current account deficit is actually low by New Zealand’s recent standards. It predicts that the current account deficit will average around 3 percent of GDP over the next 3 years which is significantly better than the average of 8 percent between 2006 and 2008. It notes what we have all observed—that households are being cautious with their spending. They are saving more and they are paying down debt despite interest rates remaining very low. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In relation to the Reserve Bank’s forecast issued today can he confirm that it shows growth revised downwards by a full percent through mid-2011 unemployment tracking above 6 percent through 2011 and a $4 billion blowout in the fiscal deficit such that the economy is now tracking below the worst-case scenario in Budget 2010? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not think that any of that is news. For some time we have been discussing in the House the fact that the economy has been softer through the middle of this year. The forecasts for the year ending March 2011 are something like 0.5 or 0.75 percent lower than was expected at Budget time. That is correct and because people are saving more and spending less we are laying the platform for better growth later. 
Craig Foss 
: What did the Reserve Bank say about the role of the Government in helping to increase New Zealand’s national savings? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Reserve Bank encourages the Government to get back to surplus a bit sooner than the current settings. It argues that faster elimination of the deficit would improve savings and ease pressures on interest rates and therefore on the exchange rate. That would have the benefit of reducing our dependence on international borrowing increase returns to exporters and assist the rebalancing of this economy which is under way but not at the speed that the Government would like to see. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: When the Minister told the House yesterday that the deficit is set to grow to $11 billion this year can he confirm that this is more than $4 billion over the $6.9 billion forecast in Budget 2010? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is expected to be larger than the Budget forecast in 2010 and the reasons for that have been outlined which are that the economy was flatter particularly in the first quarter of this financial year and we have also had one or two one-off expenses like the Canterbury earthquake. The member may think differently but I think that that expenditure was unavoidable. 
Craig Foss 
: What measures will the Government consider next year to reduce fiscal deficits and return to surplus? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We are committed to getting back to surplus no later than 2015-16. The Government will continue with the spending discipline that it has exerted for the last couple of years and those disciplines will continue to tighten on the public sector. Next week we will issue the Government’s first investment statement which will make public for the first time in a sensible way the size and ambition of the Government’s capital investment programme through to 2015 how it is to be funded and where efficiencies can be made. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister confirm that for all seven quarters that he has been Minister of Finance real GDP per capita has so far gone backwards which is why New Zealand households have gone backwards and are struggling to make ends meet? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: New Zealand households have not gone backwards. Some certainly have— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Oh yes they have. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Some have because people who relied on the previous Government’s debt-funded binge to secure their jobs were sorely disappointed. They have lost their jobs they have had income cuts and we are working very hard to rebuild their prospects. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Does Treasury advice regarding the ownership of State-owned assets referred to by Treasury’s John Crawford include recommendations to expand public-private partnerships through partial sales of State-owned assets; if so would he consider such a proposal? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Treasury as far as I can recall has not made that particular recommendation. The Government’s position has been clear and that is no sales of assets in this term. If that position changes we will campaign on it. But I might say that that is relevant to a very small part of the Government’s balance sheet. The Government owns $235 billion worth of assets and if we can improve the management of all of those assets it will have a much more significant impact on taxpayers’ value than a few partial floats would. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Given the Minister’s reply does he believe that the $94 billion overseen by the Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit is the best use of that capital for New Zealanders; if so why are the dividends paid out by the 17 State-owned enterprises it monitors showing an average return of 2 percent compared with 4.5 percent for private companies listed on the New Zealand Exchange? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think that is a very good question. In recent years State-owned enterprises were allowed to retain much of their surplus cash. That has gone into an extensive investment programme and taxpayers have not yet benefited from that. We should be expecting significant increases in dividends from that significant increase in investment in recent years. The Government has published that information so that everyone can see what will be required to get better performance out of those assets and it is quite a lot. 
Pansy Wong—International Travel with Spouse 
2. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his answer to question No. 11 yesterday that Sammy Wong did not accompany Pansy Wong on any ministerial trips to China? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes because yesterday’s question specifically asked whether the Prime Minister had approved Pansy Wong having private time on any of her ministerial trips to China and whether her husband had accompanied her on any of those visits. Mr Wong did not accompany Pansy Wong on any ministerial visit where she had private time. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he think it was a good idea to be a smart alec with the truth when yesterday answering a primary question on notice? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Standing Orders do not allow members to ask questions that include remarks to the Minister that are unparliamentary really. I invite the member to repeat his question in a way that brings it within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to ask you what your ruling is. There are a number of words that as you say are unparliamentary. Is “smart alec” one of them now? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the honourable member; the member makes a fair point of order. I chose my words poorly. In respect of debate the member is quite right that “smart alec” is not an unparliamentary expression. The Standing Orders around the asking of questions though are somewhat different. Questions are not meant to contain allegations or assertions that are unfortunate. And I think the expression was unnecessary to the question being asked. I am sure the question can be phrased in a way that does not accuse the Minister of being a smart alec and that is the issue. I accept the member’s point of order which was well made. I am not ruling out that language; it is just that in respect of questions they should not contain that sort of language. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he think it is a good idea to answer a question on notice in that manner especially when the Prime Minister has already answered a written question—No. 35737—and decided to give a completely different answer? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister believes in answering the questions that are asked. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Can he recall that he—the Prime Minister—himself when to China in April 2009 and that before Mr Sammy Wong joined him on his trip Mr Wong’s private self-funded business travel included a visit to one or more schools in Wuxi city as “Macleans College’s sole agent”; if so why did Mr McPhail conclude in paragraph 96 of last Friday’s report that Mr Wong’s “Chinese business interests [are] limited to the hovercraft company …”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Minister I may have to invite the member to rephrase his question because the Prime Minister has no responsibility for trips that are not ministerial visits and neither does the Prime Minister have any responsibility for the investigation conducted by the Parliamentary Service. But I do not what to deprive the member of his questions so I suggest that he rephrase his question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Generally in the House members are not given the indulgence of having several attempts at re-asking several questions. Mr Hodgson appears to have been given that opportunity and I would be interested to know just what the rules are now about questions that are either out of order or misdirected and how often any member of the House will get the opportunity to re-ask a question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a matter for the Speaker. What I could have done if I had been absolutely certain of the entire question is say that a certain part of it was in order because I believe that a certain part of it was in order. Had the entire question been out of order I think I would have had more sympathy with the member’s point of order. Part of the question in my view was not out of order but in its totality it was not within the Standing Orders. That is why I am asking him to rephrase it—to make sure that the whole question he is asking is within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Can he recall that the Prime Minister himself went to China in April 2009 and that before Mr Sammy Wong joined him Mr Wong’s private self-funded business travel included a visit to one or more schools in Wuxi city as “Macleans College’s sole agent”; if so does he understand why Mr McPhail concluded in paragraph 96 of last Friday’s report that Mr Wong’s “Chinese business interests [are] limited to the hovercraft company …”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The dilemma I have with the question asked is that the Prime Minister has absolutely no responsibility for Mr McPhail’s report and neither does he have any responsibility for private travel by Mr Sammy Wong. The Prime Minister certainly has responsibility for the Prime Minister’s own trip that the member referred to in his question but the dilemma I have is that the question goes way beyond the Prime Minister’s responsibility. That is why I asked the member to rephrase it and it seems to me that he has essentially asked the same question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there are two points you have indicated on the question of responsibility. My colleague did make it clear that Mr Wong as part of his private travel joined the Prime Minister as part of the business delegation. No. 1 that is a link that goes to responsibility for someone who is part of the business delegation that the Prime Minister was leading to China. The other point was—and you have ruled on a number of occasions from what we regard as National patsy questions—that Ministers can be asked about reports. This is a report it is a report that has been made public the Prime Minister has commented on it and the Prime Minister has used that report in his decision-making process as far as the formation of his Cabinet is concerned. It is not his report but it is no different from in my opinion his being asked to comment on a report in the  
Dominion Post 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point is fairly made in that under the Standing Orders at the moment opinions can certainly be sought as long as that is the way that the question is interpreted—that it is only an opinion being sought. I will allow the question but it would have been helpful if the linkage to the Prime Minister’s business delegation that the member has just made in a point of order had been made in the question. That linkage would have helped. But I will allow the Minister to answer the question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In answer to the first part of the question yes. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Is he aware that Mr Wong visited other schools at other times too including a high school affiliated to Nanjing Normal University; and noting that he has had many taxpayer-assisted trips to China and that there are a lot of schools in China does he still believe that no business was done on any taxpayer-subsidised trips? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The dilemma the member is getting into is that he is asking the Prime Minister to accept a report for which the Prime Minister has no responsibility. What is more the trips the member is referring to—from what has transpired already—were not part of the business delegation. They were part of a private trip it would seem and the Prime Minister has no responsibility for that private trip. That is the dilemma the House faces. These are important issues—I accept that absolutely—but questions do have to be within the Standing Orders and Ministers cannot be questioned on matters for which they have no responsibility. I have allowed the member to rephrase two questions so far—both supplementary questions—yet I feel that this third supplementary question is not within the Standing Orders at all. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have the Prime Minister relying on the word of one of his former Ministers as did Mr McPhail that Mr Sammy Wong had only one business interest in China which did not include these schools. The Prime Minister has relied on that report—as I think you have Mr Speaker though we cannot ask you questions about it—and I think with the Prime Minister having indicated that he has relied on the report it is appropriate for him to be questioned on it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: This issue bears on ministerial responsibility. The fact is that the MP Pansy Wong resigned from Cabinet and at that stage the Prime Minister’s responsibility ceased. The matter that then proceeded regarding reports on parliamentary travel was a matter for the Parliamentary Service and for the Speaker. It is drawing a very long bow to say that privately funded trips of the spouse of an MP who is eligible for Parliamentary Service support are the responsibility of the Prime Minister. It just cannot be the case. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Having listened to the points of order—which are made in good faith I fully accept—I believe I do have to rule that supplementary question out. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Prime Minister now think it is appropriate to label the McPhail report as a whitewash? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The dilemma again I have with that question is the Prime Minister is not at all responsible for the McPhail report and asking the Prime Minister whether it is appropriate is asking him to accept some responsibility for it. That is the dilemma I have with the question. I will give the member a chance to get wording that is reasonable. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You conduct the office of Speaker with generosity but I would have to say that it is exceeding the generosity the House would afford to any MP to give that member who prides himself on his competence a third go at asking a third supplementary question. I have never seen that before and I do not think it is a habit the House should get into. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order—[ 
Interruption 
] There will be no interjections. I accept the point of order that the member made but the difficulty that the Speaker is in is there is interest in this issue. It is very important that the Speaker who is also involved in this issue because the Speaker ordered an inquiry into it is not seen to be preventing members from being able to pursue the matter within the Standing Orders. But the questions asked do have to come within the Standing Orders; I have to insist on that. Although I accept that maybe the Speaker is being unduly generous I have said that the member could attempt to rephrase his supplementary question but it would have to come within the Standing Orders. I offer the Hon Pete Hodgson the chance but the supplementary question must come within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Has he read the McPhail report into the activities of a person who was until recently a member of his Cabinet; and what did he think of that report? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I honestly cannot answer that question. I do not know whether the Prime Minister has read it. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he think that asking the Auditor-General to investigate as he did in the case of the Hon Phil Heatley may now be a good idea after all? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has made it quite plain that if anyone has information that may be relevant to this issue it can be put in front of the Auditor-General to be investigated. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I seek leave to table two documents. They are both off Chinese websites they are both in Mandarin and they are both translated in parts into English. Both documents refer to visits of Sammy Wong to schools. One is dated March 2009 and the other date is unknown. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Tobacco Point-of-sale Advertising—Rationale for Ban 
3. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What is the rationale behind the move to prohibit the display of tobacco products for sale in retail outlets? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Government is serious about saving lives and reducing harm caused by smoking. A growing body of evidence shows that tobacco displays prompt impulse purchasing. There is a clear link between displays and young people taking up smoking. It is vital that we do more to help people quit smoking and to stop young people from being tempted to take up the habit. 
Hone Harawira 
: What other tobacco controls are being introduced to reduce tobacco consumption? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: The Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill brings in a range of other controls including the ability to issue instant infringement fines to those selling products to under-age people. We will also be monitoring the progress on Australia’s proposal to legislate plain packaging of tobacco products by 2012 and we will explore the option of New Zealand making similar moves in alignment with Australia. Those controls combined with the increase in excise tax over the next 3 years are powerful tools in reducing smoking. 
Hone Harawira 
: What public health benefits are expected over time as a result of reducing tobacco consumption? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Exposure to smoking in the home and tobacco use itself result in a staggering figure of around 5000 deaths a year. Every day 13 people die from smoking-related diseases. Reduced tobacco consumption has a direct correlation with a reduction in cancers strokes blindness coronary heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—and the list goes on. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Why did it take nearly 2 years for her to adopt the Health Committee’s recommendation to remove tobacco displays given that she had all the evidence she needed 2 years ago that she has no new evidence and that her Government has shown that it can acquiesce in just a matter of hours to a corporation like Warner Bros? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I think 2 years beats 9 years any day. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Has the honourable member quite finished? 
Jo Goodhew 
: Has the public been consulted on the issue of tobacco displays? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Yes two public consultation processes have been undertaken. The interesting point in all of this—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to both sides of the House that a question was asked of the Minister and the House deserves the courtesy of being able to hear the answer. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Yes two public consultation processes have been undertaken and the interesting point in all of this is that members of the public including those who are smokers are totally supportive of the actions that the Government is taking. 
Drink-driving Blood-alcohol Limit—Support for Reduction 
4. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Has he received any feedback or information in support of lowering the adult blood-alcohol concentration to 0.05 that has given him any doubt or cause for reflection this year about his decision to retain the level at 0.08? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I have received feedback on this issue as I have received feedback on a number of transport issues that I have dealt with this year. I always reflect carefully on the feedback that I receive and I am comfortable with the decision that I have made. I note that I am yet to reflect for as long as the previous Labour Government did. It left office after 9 years having stated in 2001 that it needed more information in order to make a decision on this issue then spent the next 8 years presumably reflecting on the need for information. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: How can New Zealand be at the front of the war on drink-driving when the UK Government is considering the North report to drop the limit there to 0.05 and in Australia a debate has begun about lowering the limit to 0.02 which means that New Zealand could end up having a legal drink-drive limit four times that of say a city like Melbourne? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I know that the UK Government is considering that report at the moment. Of course it currently has a lower road toll than either New Zealand or Australia with the 0.08 limit. I note that it is considering not putting down the limit in favour of more research into the change. I also note that the Quebec Government in Canada has recently rejected a decision to lower the drink-drive limit from 0.08 to 0.05 in favour of more education and more tests at the current level. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Which adult limit has the most community support as demonstrated by public opinion polls and submissions: the current limit of 0.08 that he is leaving in place or the 0.05 limit that has been proposed by Labour? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I note that the Labour Party is of course a lion in Opposition on this stuff. I think the member should reflect on whether if he ever gets the chance to be in Government again Labour will actually get around to changing the limit. I think the important thing to note is that statistics show that 72 percent of all alcohol-related deaths on our roads are caused by drivers who either have a prior drink-driving conviction or are more than 50 percent over the current legal adult limit. I think it could be said the member may be promoting a change that does not have a significant impact in the way that tackling recidivist and high-level drink-drivers can. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Has Bob McMillan of Team McMillan BMW talked to him regarding his concerns about the current 0.08 blood-alcohol limit given that Mr McMillan took out this advertisement in the  
New Zealand Herald  
and gave $50000 to the National Party so that he could “mix with our master”; and if even major National Party donors do not agree with his blood-alcohol limit why does he not accept the consensus that now exists right across this country and lower the adult blood-alcohol limit to 0.05? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not sure but the member seems to be suggesting that donors to the National Party should influence public policy decisions. I think that is a rather outrageous suggestion and it can only be something that the Labour Party is familiar with rather than the National Government. I point out that the Government is doing a lot on this issue. The Government is running a nil limit for recidivist drink-drivers and a nil limit for young drivers introducing alcohol interlocks and finally collecting the data that the previous Government refused to collect despite recognising back in 2001 that it needed it. 
Housing State and Social—Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group Recommendations 
5. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What recent announcement has he made about the direction of social housing in New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Today I announced the overarching decisions in response to the recommendations of the Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group. It has become apparent that the status quo for the provision of State housing is no longer sustainable and we need to make some significant changes. As such the Government will be acting on many of the group’s key recommendations. These recommendations include working closely with the third sector to grow the total quantum of social housing in New Zealand the end to having a State house for life the introduction of reviewable tenancies for all Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants from 1 July 2011—that is new tenants not current ones—and placing responsibility for housing-related policy with one agency. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What will the introduction of reviewable tenancies mean for new Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: This Government is committed to providing a house for those in need for as long as that need exists. The introduction of reviewable tenancies means that from 1 July next year all new tenants will have their tenancy periodically reviewed. For many their need for a State house will be a long-term situation and they will be housed for as long as that need exists. However we will work with those who have seen a significant improvement in their circumstances to find them alternative accommodation. That alternative might be in the community housing sector; it might be in the private sector. Once reviewable tenancies have been implemented for new tenants consideration will be given to extending this measure to current tenants although the elderly and those who are significantly disabled would not go on to reviewable tenancies. 
Tim Macindoe 
: How does the Government plan to grow the third sector? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We will be working with providers in the community housing sector over the coming months to find the best ways to address the current constraints that challenge their growth. We know that those providers can successfully provide housing. They are ready willing and able and we are ready willing and able to help them. These providers can leverage funding and assets from a broad range of sources. They have wide skills often specialise and offer extra services and they are often more competitive and innovative when it comes to house design and production. We want to support them and we will. 
Moana Mackey 
: If he is prepared to exempt pensioners from any reviewable tenancies regardless of their means will he also exempt families with young children who attend local schools given the negative impacts disruption can have on educational achievement? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We have said that any new tenants coming in from 1 July next year will be on reviewable tenancies. We are saying that in terms of current tenants going on to reviewable tenancies the elderly and seriously disabled can expect not to have to go on to reviewable tenancies. In terms of families they will go on reviewable tenancies but of course they may need to remain in their State home if their need persists. If their circumstances improve then clearly they will move out of State housing and into community housing or private housing. 
Earthquake Canterbury—Support for Business Recovery Package 
6. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Is the Government’s response package announced last week to assist Canterbury businesses affected by the 4 September earthquake universally supported by the Government and its supporters? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 The member will be aware that this Government has a vast number of supporters and as one of its own members pointed out today some of those supporters do have occasional disagreements with the Government. So I would not presume to speak on their behalf. 
Brendon Burns 
: Given that the $600000 package the Minister announced is mostly the salaries of 2.5 business mentors with just $100000 in cash to promote struggling Canterbury businesses does he truly believe that that is anywhere near sufficient when hundreds of small and medium sized enterprises in Canterbury have since the quake seen turnover drop by half or more and are shedding staff or going to the wall as a result? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am aware that there are hundreds if not thousands of businesses in Canterbury that have adjusted to these conditions and that are thriving. I am aware of a number of businesses that do have difficulties. In the end it is getting customers through their door that will make the biggest difference to them in the long term and that is what this package at this point is focused on. 
Brendon Burns 
: Is it correct that the very modest bids for funding to assist business recovery totalling $4.1 million from the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise North Canterbury were turned down by the Government for fear of creating a “precedent” and on that basis what support could businesses in Wellington Auckland or any other New Zealand centre expect if they were similarly devastated by a once-in-750-years natural disaster? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year supporting sectors in the New Zealand economy. Many of those sectors have businesses that are affected in this way. It is getting customers through the door that is the most important thing for those businesses and that is what we are focusing on. As for the package that was requested by the chamber of commerce and by the people out at Kaiapoi all I can say is that no criteria for the way that that money might have been spent were provided to the Government with satisfactory answers about what it might achieve. So yes it was declined. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Apart from the Earthquake Commission and insurance company payouts the premiums for which of course are paid for by householders or companies themselves how does the Government funding provided to workers and businesses affected by the force 7.1 earthquake compare with drought flood or biosecurity funding or Auckland’s roading infrastructure given the scale of destruction and loss suffered by businesses and workers in Canterbury as a result of the earthquake? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The first point I will make is that the recovery from the Canterbury earthquake will take a very long time. The Government will need to make available various types of assistance as the next couple of years progress. I can say to the member that we think the best thing that can happen for businesses in Canterbury is to get customers through their doors. That is what this package is designed to do. We have also been informed that that package particularly the promotional side can be leveraged and we have had offers through media organisations to do that meaning that the value will be a great deal more. This is a unique situation. There are many many needs that will need to be met and the Government is if you like triaging exactly where that support should go and at what time. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will he accept my invitation to attend the next round of public information meetings that I will be organising for earthquake-affected— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Oh! 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The member might not be interested but the people of Canterbury are. Will the Minister accept my—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe the level of interjection was not that great. The member should just ask his question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: This is a serious issue. Will he accept— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to just ask his question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will he accept my invitation to attend the next round of public information meetings that I will be organising for earthquake-affected residents so that he can provide detailed answers to the people for instance of Kaiapoi who are feeling increasingly frustrated with the lack of information from the Government and who along with other residents of Canterbury have repeatedly asked him to front up and answer their questions? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I totally reject any suggestion that I have not fronted up or have shown any reluctance to answer questions. What I am not interested in dealing with is some of the silly speculation that goes on from people who perhaps have not read all the information that is available at the present time. I say to the member that in the new year I will consider running meetings myself to give that information. What I would also say as someone who is personally affected by this is that I think the communications at this point given the complexity of the problem have been perfectly adequate and rarking people up unnecessarily does not help them. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is the Minister aware that for many earthquake-affected residents who have been forced from their homes their private insurance cover for temporary accommodation lasts only 6 to 12 months; if so what extension to its response package is the Government considering to assist these earthquake victims when this temporary accommodation assistance runs out? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is a very real and serious problem that the Government has a team working on. I have myself had discussions this week with the Insurance Council about how we might give effect to sorting out that problem. 
Welfare Reforms—Focus 
7. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she agree with the Alternative Welfare Working Group that welfare reform should be focused on “the relentless pursuit of well-being”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 That is a very idealistic goal. This Government takes a more pragmatic view preferring to concentrate on an unrelenting focus on work. I note that the member had her policies written down in a song “The Twelve Days of Christmas”. I hope the House gets an opportunity to hear some of that today. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I am sorry to disappoint. Will she commit to meeting the members of the Alternative Welfare Working Group to discuss their findings; if so when? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I see them as submitters to the Welfare Working Group. They have an opportunity to submit to that group. I think that is the right process for them to go through and I look forward to recommendations coming from the Welfare Working Group. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does she agree with the Alternative Welfare Working Group that the current emphasis on paid work is too narrow and treats caring for children as inferior secondary and unimportant? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think we all agree that children are at the centre of what this Government sees as social development and social policy. Hence when we talk about child poverty and those people who are on benefits for long periods of time it is children who are most disadvantaged. Our focus is on getting those people into work giving them the skills to get there and helping them in any way we can in that respect. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does the Government accept that raising children is work? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It can be hard work at times; it can also be incredibly pleasurable and something that most people aspire to and enjoy doing. I hope that the member’s co-leader enjoys his experience in the next few months as well. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Why should single mothers be required to work in minimum wage jobs instead of caring for their children when middle-class mothers can choose to stay at home? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Of partnered women 68 percent are in paid work at this time; and of sole parents approximately 52 percent are in paid work. I do not discern a difference between sole parents and those who are in partnerships. Some mothers choose to work and some mothers do not and that is a matter for those women whether or not they are partnered. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked why single mothers should be required to work instead of being able to stay at home. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister responded. It was not perhaps exactly the answer that the member expected but I think it was a reasonable answer to the question asked. The Minister explained the situation that partnered women are working in paid work rather more than women who are not partnered. I think it was a reasonably interesting answer to the question. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does she agree that accessing education while caring for children is a good way for parents on the domestic purposes benefit to prepare to move into work; if so will she consider reintroducing a form of training incentive allowance? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There is extra assistance for those who are on the domestic purposes benefit and in study at the moment. There is an extra $500 loan that they can take. There is a lot of assistance for those people now. Certainly at this time the Government feels that that is enough but we look forward to seeing recommendations from the Welfare Working Group. As such we will not be pre-empting it. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Should every child have access to the essentials this Christmas regardless of whether their parents rely on a benefit? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: That is certainly what New Zealand stands for and certainly what this Government stands for as well. Those children should be cared for and looked after. I believe that our policies and what we put in place to support them does that. 
Energy Strategy—Lignite Mining 
8. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Will the mining of lignite form part of his New Zealand Energy Strategy? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Not specifically. However one of the goals or areas of focus that are outlined in the Energy Strategy is the development of New Zealand’s oil and petroleum mineral fuel resources. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Is he aware that the report released by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment today states that one large lignite-to-diesel plant similar to that proposed by L and M Mining in Southland would increase New Zealand’s carbon dioxide emissions by 7 percent; if so how does that fit into his draft energy strategy goal of lowering greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes. That is a separate report. It has nothing to do with the Energy Strategy. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Who will pay for the $137 million a year that such an increase in emissions will cost—New Zealand L and M Mining or the taxpayer? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member should well know that that cost would fall on the business operator. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: If the use of 10 million tonnes of lignite to produce diesel would cost $137 million a year in emissions what would be the cost of using 6.3 billion tonnes of lignite which he told the distinguished fellows forum of the Centre for Advanced Engineering was technically and economically recoverable in Southland and was a cost he thought worth paying? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: A much bigger number. 
Education Student Achievement—Programme for International Student Assessment Results 
9. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What were the results of the Programme for International Assessment (PISA) which looked at New Zealand students’ achievement in reading maths and scientific literacy? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The latest Programme for International Student Assessment results show that our top-performing students are up amongst the best in the world and we should be proud of that. However New Zealand continues to have a disproportionate number of lower achievers. In fact of the top-performing countries in reading literacy which was the main focus for the Programme for International Student Assessment in 2010 New Zealand has the largest range of student scores between the top and the bottom 5 percent of students. And New Zealand has the largest range of scores in the middle range—that is between the top and bottom—at 25 percent. In addition there has been no significant change in our students’ performance in reading for the last 10 years or in maths for the past 6 years. 
Louise Upston 
: What is the Government doing to address the findings of the Programme for International Student Assessment in 2009? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: In the modern world we cannot allow any of our students to be left behind. National standards in reading writing and maths will give us the information that we need to address underachievement as early as possible with timely and targeted interventions. To further strengthen work that is already under way the Ministry of Education will take a much more direct front-line focus on supporting schools to lift student achievement. 
Motor Vehicle Information—Response to Charges to Web-based Services 
10. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: How many emails has he received on the decision of the New Zealand Transport Agency to start charging CarJam and similar web-based information services for accessing the agency’s stored basic motor vehicle information? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask front-bench members to please stop this interjection. It was difficult for me to hear the question. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Following CarJam emailing its customer database and posting a message on the front page of its website which apparently has about 150000 subscribers per month my office has received about 4500 form emails on this issue. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does he agree that free website access to a motor vehicle’s history is a cheap and effective way of keeping dodgy and potentially dangerous vehicles off our roads; if so what does he say to those 20000 people who have signed the online petition protesting his decision to claw back a few dollars in the name of user-pays? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: That question is wrong in its assumptions on so many levels. Let me just deal with a couple. Firstly in most cases the charges for accessing that information have been reduced. Secondly the changes that the New Zealand Transport Agency has made will reduce the total revenue received from providing the service. Thirdly the business model of the websites—to access the one or two items that have previously been free to give that away free and then to charge significant sums of money for more detailed reports—has led to massive increases in the amount of data. That means that the New Zealand Transport Agency has had to charge for some of that data. Finally all this is the reality of having a very old motor vehicles register that is unable to provide the information easily to users. That has happened because the previous Government over 9 years never spent the money to update the motor vehicles register. 
Darien Fenton 
: By applying the user-pays model to motor vehicle registration information—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. I say to her colleagues sitting on the bench in front of her that when they interject it is difficult for me to hear her question. What is more it is discourteous. 
Darien Fenton 
: By applying the user-pays model to motor vehicle registration information is the Government telling us that dodgy practices—such as clocking odometers patching up written-off vehicles flicking off stolen vehicles on TradeMe or onselling repossessed cars that have money still owing—have all mysteriously ceased to be a problem in the used-car market? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No and I point out again for the member that the previous Government operated this same user-pays model. In fact the New Zealand Transport Agency is collecting less revenue now than it was previously. The transactions the member refers to are 16c for an instant transaction and 2c for an overnight transaction—2c. It could of course be 2c for all transactions if the previous Government had got around to updating the motor vehicles register. In that Government’s 9 years in office it absolutely neglected core business. 
Darien Fenton 
: Why would the New Zealand Transport Agency have the marketing slogan “Building a better transport system for New Zealanders” while at the same time reduce access to the information that helps make our national fleet safer and also make it more difficult for already hard-pressed families to make the best decision when purchasing a vehicle? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member has not been listening to the answers to any of the previous questions. Sadly if the previous Government had adopted an approach of making sure that Government business ran properly and had taken a responsible approach to renewing infrastructure we would not be in the position of having to charge 16c for instant transactions; we would be able to charge 2c for the lot. In fact the New Zealand Transport Agency is lowering the amount of revenue it is receiving. 
Bovine Tuberculosis—Management Plan 
11. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What recent steps has the Government taken to control bovine TB? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Earlier this week I was pleased to confirm that the Government would commit $30 million annually for the next 5 years to manage bovine tuberculosis. This ensures that the good work of the national pest management strategy will continue and that we can make significant progress in controlling this damaging disease. Failure to do that places at risk our trade access to many valuable offshore markets. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What support is the primary sector providing to control bovine tuberculosis? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Bovine Tuberculosis National Pest Management Strategy is a true industry - Government partnership. On top of the $30 million annual contribution from the Crown the beef dairy and deer industries commit $45 million and regional councils around $7 million. In total $82 million is available each year to fund what is the world-leading tuberculosis management programme. 
Early Childhood Education Limited-attendance Centres—Minister Responsible for Legislation 
12. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Which Minister is to be responsible for the enforcement of the Education Act 1989 in relation to limited-attendance early childhood centres following the passing of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2)? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Minister of Education and the Minister for Tertiary Education are responsible for the Education Act 1989. Gym and shopping mall creches will not come under the Education Act because they are not providers of education. These types of facilities will come under a wide range of requirements including the Health and Safety in Employment Act the Building Act and the contractual obligations that they will have with parents. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When she suggested that the Health and Safety in Employment Act could be used for protection from the paedophiles who will no longer be subject to police vetting before being employed to care for children at limited-attendance centres after her bill is passed was she indicating that she thought fellow employees were in danger from those paedophiles rather than the children they were caring for? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am sorry but that question was so convoluted that I did not understand it. Could I ask the member to repeat it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will repeat his question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When she suggested that the Health and Safety in Employment Act could be used for protection from the paedophiles who will no longer be subject to police vetting before being employed to care for children at limited-attendance centres after her bill is passed was she indicating that she thought fellow employees were in danger from those paedophiles under that Act rather than the children they were caring for? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No. The Health and Safety in Employment Act requires that all practicable steps are taken to ensure that no action or inaction of any employee harms another person. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When she said scout and guide leaders were not subject to police checks was she aware that it is the policy of the national organisations for both scouts and guides that all those who supervise children are subject to police checks? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Absolutely and that is the point: legislation does not require it. But the obligations that those organisations have to the parents who entrust them with their children mean that in order to protect themselves and the children they voluntarily make sure that anyone who is working with children undergoes a police check. Many parents insist on that before they make the decision to leave their children with those groups. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is she aware that there are no national organisations such as there are for scouts and guides covering childcare centres at gyms shopping malls or swimming pools that could impose a policy to ensure that police checks are carried out on any staff who will be supervising children? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes. But a large number of organisations that work with a variety of children are in the process of developing some guidelines now and will continue to develop guidelines as parents make the decision themselves to entrust their children to those people. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is she sure that she is doing the right thing in removing the primary protection against children being exposed to known paedophiles in limited-attendance early childhood centres? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: That is not what I am doing. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 8 December 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I seek leave to table this photo of Vera Wilson taken today by her son Murray as she was being forced to leave her home in Taihape and move to Feilding to be separated for the first time in her marriage from her husband by a locked door—the face of health cuts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last comment was not helpful. 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. 
Questions to Members 
Student Loan Scheme Bill—Submissions Received 
1. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Student Loan Scheme Bill? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 Ten. 
Student Loan Scheme Bill—Requests for Oral Submissions 
2. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: How many submitters on the Student Loan Scheme Bill have requested to be heard in person? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 Those are matters for the committee. The committee is yet to discuss those matters. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: When will the committee consider whether all those who have sought to be heard in person will be allowed to do so? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: That is a matter of committee business until such time as the committee discusses those matters. 
Sustainable Biofuel Bill—Submissions Received 
3. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Sustainable Biofuel Bill? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee) 
: 
 Twenty-eight. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How many submissions were received after the due date? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I do not have that information with me. 
Sustainable Biofuel Bill—Requests for Oral Submissions 
4. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: How many submitters on the Sustainable Biofuel Bill have requested to be heard in person? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee) 
: 
 Ten. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Was every submitter who requested to be heard in person given that opportunity? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Yes. All were heard in person in Wellington on 22 and 29 October. 
Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill—Submissions Received 
5. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee) 
: 
 Twenty-two submissions have been received on the bill. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How many submissions were received after the due date? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: None so far. We have one that has asked to be received and permission has been granted. That submission is due by the end of this week. 
Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill—Requests for Oral Submissions 
6. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: How many submitters on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/ Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill have requested to be heard in person? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee) 
: 
 In direct response to the question and its mispronunciation none. But we have had six submitters requesting to be heard on the “Raki-ur-a” bill. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How much time has the select committee set aside to hear those submissions? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: That is the committee’s business. 
Question No. 7 to Member 
Question postponed. 
Question No. 8 to Member 
Question postponed. 
Question No. 9 to Member 
Question postponed. 
Question No. 10 to Member 
Question postponed. 
Retirement Commissioner—2009-10 Financial Review 
11. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: Has the Finance and Expenditure Committee conducted the 2009-10 financial review of the Office of the Retirement Commissioner? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 No. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Has the Finance and Expenditure Committee decided to call back the Retirement Commissioner for further discussion on her report on securing superannuation given that her early appearance was unfortunately scheduled just days before the report was tabled? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: How the committee conducts its business and chooses to progress its work is a matter for the committee. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The matter of whether the committee has timetabled a repeat appearance by the Retirement Commissioner is a matter that is well within the ambit of the chairperson being able to answer in the House. He is simply dodging the question by saying it is a matter of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member asked a wider question than just that and the chair of the committee focused on another part of the question the member asked. 
Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill—Submissions Received 
12. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 Twenty-eight. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that the chairs of committees are under instruction to be as brief as possible but if the chairs when they are given the call by you begin their answer before their microphones have been switched on we cannot hear the answer. I could not hear the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I have no idea how many submissions he said there had been. Some of the members seeking the call are obscure and the technicians do not know where they sit so we have to wait till the microphones are on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Interestingly the Speaker often has difficulty hearing things in this House but he had no trouble hearing that answer. It was 28. 
Darien Fenton 
: When was the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill first introduced? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The chair of the committee has no responsibility for that. 
Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill—Requests for Oral Submissions 
13. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: How many submitters on the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill have requested to be heard in person? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 Six. 
Darien Fenton 
: When will the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill be reported back to the House? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The report-back date for the bill is 24 December 2010. 
Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—Submissions Received 
14. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 Eighty-five. 
Darien Fenton 
: How many of those submissions supported the immediate lowering of the adult blood-alcohol concentration to 0.5— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The chairperson of the committee has no responsibility for that matter. 
Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill—Submissions Received 
15. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 on behalf of  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill? 
CHESTER BORROWS (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee) 
: 
 The committee has received six submissions on the bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I could not hear him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I understand it the answer was that there were six submissions on the bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of his answer that only six submissions have been received on that bill is it the committee’s intention to call for further submissions in order to make sure that a wide spread of public opinion is received? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: No. 
Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill—Requests for Oral Submissions 
16. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 on behalf of  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: How many submitters on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill have requested to be heard in person? 
CHESTER BORROWS (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee) 
: 
 All six submitters asked to be heard all of whom have appeared or have been scheduled for hearing. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is it the intention of the committee in order to make sure that the evidence is robust and covers all matters to call back any of those submitters for further submission or elucidation? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: No. 
Legal Services Bill—Submissions Received 
17. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 on behalf of  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Legal Services Bill? 
CHESTER BORROWS (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee) 
: 
 We have received 26 submissions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of the fact that only 26 submissions have been received on the Legal Services Bill and of the importance of the legislation is it the committee’s intention to call for further submissions to make sure there is a widespread understanding of the importance of the bill for committee members? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: A widespread range of submissions has been received by the committee and we do not intend to seek further submissions. 
Legal Services Bill—Requests for Oral Submissions 
18. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 on behalf of  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: How many submitters on the Legal Services Bill have requested to be heard in person? 
CHESTER BORROWS (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee) 
: 
 Thirteen submitters asked to appear in support of their submissions all of whom have already appeared in order to give evidence. The committee deliberated on the bill today. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is the chair satisfied that it was not appropriate to call for further people to be heard on the bill in order to better improve the committee’s understanding? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: I am more than satisfied. 
Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill—Submissions Received 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 On behalf of my learned colleague— 
Hon Member 
: Esteemed! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No esteemed is not a word that is used— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will just ask his question. 
19. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 on behalf of  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill? 
CHESTER BORROWS (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee) 
: 
 The committee received 233 submissions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of the fact that only just over 200 submissions have been received on this very important bill is it the intention of the committee to re-advertise to make sure more people are aware of that important bill? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: No as the importance of the bill has been mitigated by the introduction of an excellent bill by the Government and the Minister of Justice Simon Power which is open to submissions at the moment. 
Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill—Requests for Oral Submissions 
20. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 on behalf of  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: How many submitters on the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill have requested to be heard in person? 
CHESTER BORROWS (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee) 
: 
 One hundred and two submitters asked to be heard. The committee heard from 79 before putting consideration of the bill on hold to await the publication of the Law Commission’s report earlier this year. It has now been overtaken by events with the introduction of the new bill. Submissions are open until 18 February and we expect an overwhelming response from the public to submit on this fine piece of legislation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is it the intention of the committee to write to the submitters who have not been heard inviting them to make a submission on the subsequent legislation? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: No because submitters who responded not only to the first bill but to the Law Commission’s report who numbered 3000 are well aware of events—the new bill that is before the committee—and have made public their intention to submit on that fine piece of legislation. 
Food Bill—Submissions Received 
21. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Food Bill? 
SHANE ARDERN (Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee) 
: 
 Sixty-seven submissions. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: How many submissions were received after the submission due date? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: No submissions were received after the due date. 
Food Bill—Requests for Oral Submissions 
22. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee 
: How many submitters on the Food Bill have requested to be heard in person? 
SHANE ARDERN (Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee) 
: 
 Twenty-four submitters requested to be heard and were heard. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: When will the bill be reported back to the House? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Presumably on the next sitting day as the bill was deliberated on today. 
Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill—Submissions Received 
23. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill? 
SHANE ARDERN (Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee) 
: 
 Thirteen submissions were received. 
Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill—Requests for Oral Submissions 
24. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee 
: How many submitters on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill have requested to be heard in person? 
SHANE ARDERN (Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee) 
: 
 Eight submitters requested to be heard. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: When will this bill be reported back to the House? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That matter is still before the committee.