edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Sharples Pita: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Sharples Pita: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3511] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Tena tatou katoa. I will make a brief call to reiterate the Maori Party’s support for the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. 
Ever since the beginning elders have had a special place in our family in our extended family and in our community. Against all sorts of odds we are still fighting hard to keep that situation going. The key thing for us is to make sure that our elders have the opportunity to play a role in the lives of their children grandchildren and great-grandchildren. That is obviously why we support the bill—so that they can have a fair means by which to enjoy their later life and times. 
In fact it was respect for elders that created the kohanga reo movement in 1981 which saw for the first time a whole-of-New Zealand movement whereby Maori respected and followed the wishes of their elders. All over New Zealand kohanga reo were created quite independent of Government or any formal organisation simply because the elders who had gathered decided that it was a good initiative that should be followed. So that is a modern example if you like of the status that our old people hold in our lives. 
I point out that although we support the initiatives of the bill—to extend eligibility etc.—we hope the Government is also taking the responsibility to consider other amendments in respect of the distribution of superannuation that take into account the disparities evident in life expectancy. For example Maori men will die 8.2 years earlier than non-Maori men and Maori women will die 8.8 years earlier than non-Maori women. So that means that Winston Peters Mahara Okeroa Ron Mark and a few other colleagues will not be around for as long as some other members. As in so many areas of our social policy those predetermined arbitrary age limits which seem to be set for fiscal reasons generate inequities. We challenge the thinking behind those age limits in that it creates the disparity. That is why prior to the election the Maori Party came out and said we should perhaps consider providing superannuation earlier to certain people if it could be shown that those people had a shorter life expectancy. 
The Maori Party supports the bill. We would also have supported the amendment for back pay—had it not been thrown away—the amendment to go back to that time when people applied for back pay and were declined and so on. But we support the bill.
Robertson H V Ross: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans' Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3504] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to advise the Committee at this stage that the Government has issued a financial veto certificate in relation to the Hon Nick Smith’s amendment to insert new clause 6A. The amendment is therefore out of order and no question will be put on it. However the veto certificate may be debated in the context of this part.
Vote: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3504] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3504] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Question agreed to.
Vote: Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3490] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a first time.
Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3490] 
Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a first time.
Parker David: Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3490] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.
Copeland Gordon: Urgent Debates — Power Outage—Upper North Island 
Copeland Gordon: Urgent Debates — Power Outage—Upper North Island 
[Volume:631;Page:3488] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House in view of those circumstances—an obvious misunderstanding about the matter—to take a 5-minute call in the urgent debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has sought leave for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. We will go back to the urgent debate.
Copeland Gordon: Urgent Debates — Power Outage—Upper North Island 
Copeland Gordon: Urgent Debates — Power Outage—Upper North Island 
[Volume:631;Page:3488] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. United Future is yet to have a call in this urgent debate. A little while ago I did ask the person in the Chair Ross Robertson whether I could take the final call in the debate and I would like to do that if possible. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The time for the debate has expired. All that the member can do is seek leave.
Hartley Ann: Urgent Debates — Power Outage—Upper North Island 
Hartley Ann: Urgent Debates — Power Outage—Upper North Island 
[Volume:631;Page:3488] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The debate has finished. I call on Government order of the day No. 1.
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates — Power Outage—Upper North Island 
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates — Power Outage—Upper North Island 
[Volume:631;Page:3488] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the International Energy Agency report on New Zealand that specifically identifies the issue of transmission into Auckland stating that this was a problem ignored by the Government. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates — Power Outage—Upper North Island 
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates — Power Outage—Upper North Island 
[Volume:631;Page:3486] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice that not a single Government member from Auckland has chosen to participate in the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes it is if you will let me finish. I understand from the Clerk that there is only one further opportunity to speak so I seek leave for a further slot of 10 minutes to be made available so that Judith Tizard— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot seek leave for another member. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is for an extension of the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will please be seated. He cannot seek leave for someone else to have an extension of time or to speak. He cannot do that on behalf of someone else. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am seeking leave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Bradford Sue: Urgent Debates — Power Outage—Upper North Island 
Bradford Sue: Urgent Debates — Power Outage—Upper North Island 
[Volume:631;Page:3480] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I would like to take a brief call to say it is really nonsense that we are having to have an urgent debate in the House today on the Auckland power cut yesterday. That is not to say that it was not a very serious situation that arose. I lived through the 1998 Auckland power crisis trying to keep a large organisation afloat for weeks without power while providing medical services to thousands of people with a generator out on the footpath. So I am well aware of how difficult it is and my sympathy goes out to all the people and businesses that suffered yesterday. 
But I think it should be obvious to all of us in this House that it is not viable to have a power supply system that is invulnerable to freak events. To have a duplication of all systems supplying power to Auckland much less to the rest of New Zealand would be prohibitively expensive. All countries even those much wealthier than us have electricity outages at times that are caused by freak or abnormal weather events. Building a 400 kilovolt line through the Waikato for example would not have prevented what happened yesterday. 
However we obviously do need some urgent analysis that can identify the weak points in the system—not just the one that happened yesterday but others as well which I feel sure exist—in order to look at how those can be strengthened and improved. Obviously we should also look at how maintenance of the lines can be improved. From what the Minister has said just now I understand that a report is expected very urgently from Transpower—within 2 weeks—and that there will be a review by an independent expert. I also understand from the Government that on its part urgent action will be taken. 
Transpower must ensure that its lines are maintained properly and that they are adequate for the large loads they are carrying into our largest city. There should be more buffers in the system where possible. 
We accept that the Government has taken urgent action and is going as fast as it can to ensure the reliability of Auckland’s supply. I also think that those of us in the House—all of us here as MPs—and others should accept that we are ordinary mortals and that we cannot control the weather. We have to accept that at times weather events happen that are completely out of our control.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Power Outage—Upper North Island 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Power Outage—Upper North Island 
[Volume:631;Page:3472] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The third application is from the Hon Dr Nick Smith relating to the power shortage that occurred yesterday affecting the upper North Island. This is also a case of particular occurrence involving a ministerial or administrative responsibility of the Government and given the nature of the incidence I think it is important enough to warrant the attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. I therefore accept that application and call on the Hon Dr Nick Smith to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Enterprises—Expansion into New Business Areas Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali—Expulsion 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Enterprises—Expansion into New Business Areas Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali—Expulsion 
[Volume:631;Page:3471] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The second application is from the Hon Murray McCully relating to a decision to expel Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali. The expulsion is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However again I am unable to see why the decision to expel this particular individual requires the immediate attention of the House by way of urgent debate. These applications are declined.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Enterprises—Expansion into New Business Areas Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali—Expulsion 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Enterprises—Expansion into New Business Areas Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali—Expulsion 
[Volume:631;Page:3471] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a number of applications seeking a debate under Standing Order 380. The first from Gordon Copeland relates to a change in policy for State-owned enterprises regarding their expansion into new business areas. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I do not feel that it requires the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. There will be other parliamentary opportunities to explore the implications of this change.
Paraone Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Paraone Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3469] 
11.  
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Is he satisfied that the tribal fishing rights of Ngati Wai have been satisfactorily addressed in the process of creating a proposed marine reserve off Great Barrier Island? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Associate Minister of Fisheries) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Fisheries 
: I can advise that the Minister does have some concerns about the potential impact the proposed marine reserve at Great Barrier Island could have on the customary fishing rights of Ngati Wai. These concerns along with all other potential impacts of the proposal on fishing activities are currently being considered by the Ministry of Fisheries. 
Pita Paraone 
: How many marine reserve proposals for the Northland area are currently being considered and at what point does the Minister of Fisheries become involved in the evaluation and consultation process of marine reserve proposals? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I do not know the exact figure for marine reserve proposals in Northland but I do know that the Marine Reserves Act 1971 requires the Minister of Fisheries’ concurrence with the Minister of Conservation’s decision. This ensures that fisheries stakeholders’ rights including customary rights are taken into account before marine reserves are established. 
Pita Paraone 
: Will the Minister of Fisheries assign a weighting to the Ngati Wai tribal rights in his consideration of whether he should give his concurrent consent to the establishment of a marine reserve off Great Barrier Island; if so how? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: On 23 May 2006 ministry officials also met with the Ngati Wai Trust Board—Ngati Wai in Whangarei—which is the iwi authority recognised by te iwi o Ngati Wai under the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 to discuss customary fishing around the region of Aotea. He is looking forward to more information from the officials. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I should not have to raise this point of order but the Maori affairs spokesman for the National Party shouted out: “Who are the Ngati Wai?”. Well they are the people of the sea—unlike the people all at sea which is the party he belongs to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3465] 
9.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Building Issues 
: What reports if any has he received on the review of the building code? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I have received a number of reports supporting the Government’s review of the building code. The Construction Industry Council said the review will “ensure that New Zealanders get what they want from their buildings.” The Registered Master Builders Federation of New Zealand “welcomed the review.” The Auckland City Council also welcomed the review for “the opportunity it provides to bring in new standards and targets which are better suited to the modern building environment and sustainable development.” I have seen one other commentator however clearly still in denial over the terrible consequences of the building industry deregulation in the 1990s who claimed falsely that building regulations would ban “the do-it-yourself builder.” That is wrong; they are protected. That commentator of course was the National Party building issues spokesperson Nick Smith. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Why is it necessary to review the building code? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The existing building code is over 15 years old and reflects that which I spoke about—the attitudes of the 1990s. The new code will set out a modern performance-based set of rules and standards for building design and construction so our homes and workplaces are built right the first time. It will have an emphasis on energy efficiency and sustainability to reflect what people expect from their buildings in the 21st century. I encourage people to get involved in the review—if the members opposite can swallow their pride and admit they were wrong I am happy for even them to submit.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3464] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is an exact illustration of what I mean about the National Party. The National member sought to table the speech but now that the member has actually read it the National Party does not want to table it again. National is wasting Parliament’s time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I thank the member. He has made his point but that was not a point of order either.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3464] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make it very clear that Dr Smith was objecting to the fact that one cannot seek to table the same document twice in 1 day. Dr Smith previously sought to table the speech that Mr Peters wanted to table but in fact he had leave to do that denied by Mr Peters. So it is not possible for him to seek to table it again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes one can table the same document twice in the same day so that is not a valid point of order.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3463] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I assume that that is the same speech for which I sought the leave of the House to table so perhaps I should read its first line: “One would not have thought from that speech that in 1986 the Labour Government decided to deregulate the electricity industry.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking leave to table that speech or is this a point of information? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is a point of information. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well that is not a point of order. There was objection to the tabling of the document so we will now move on to question No. 8.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3463] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table in the interests of veracity and truth a speech I made on 24 February 1998 on the question of granting a full inquiry into finding out why there had been a blackout in Auckland. In particular I stated that we intended to discover what kind of operation Mercury Energy had been running and who was responsible for what had happened. It is as simple as that—rather than being the totally obtuse piece of misinformation given by Dr Nick Smith.  
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3462] 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Finance? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does she agree with Dr Cullen’s statements that Television New Zealand and three of the countries largest newspapers were biased in their coverage of the debate over tax cuts and were running a personal agenda in favour of tax cuts; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Dr Cullen and I would not be the only people in New Zealand who thought the media had something of an obsession with this issue. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Did she have any discussions with Dr Cullen following the broadcast of television footage showing him criticising a number of senior journalists for stories about tax cuts and did she give him any counsel about the inadvisability of shooting the messenger? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes we did have a discussion. The main conclusion of that discussion was to not trust that particular journalist again. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has she told Dr Cullen that while 63 percent of New Zealanders believe he could have given tax cuts his attacking journalists for doing their job simply reinforces the view that he has no acceptable reason for his heavy taxation burden on New Zealand workers? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not know how many times the National Party has to be told that New Zealand is not a heavily taxed country. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does she accept that the poor response to the “Bondi Budget” is in large part due to Dr Cullen’s failure to deliver much-expected tax cuts and can she confirm that it will take the retirement of Dr Cullen for Labour to deliver on New Zealand workers’ expectation that they will get tax cuts? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I expect Dr Cullen to keep on delivering better services and infrastructure—all the things that cannot be done if everything is thrown away in tax cuts as the National Party wants to do.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3460] 
4.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the likely impact of an ageing population on New Zealand’s finances? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 That is not a personal question. I recently received a Standard and Poor’s report that concludes that this Government’s programme of debt reduction and provision for future superannuation costs has made New Zealand one of the best-placed nations in the world to cope with the costs of an ageing population. The report also noted that tax cuts on the scale of Australia’s would be “very short-sighted” and questioned whether they would be sustainable. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koutou te Whare. In light of the significant difference in life expectancy with Maori dying an average of 8 years earlier than non-Maori what reports has the Minister received outlining the impact of that disparity on the economy and is that a concern for the Government or is the Minister pleased to be saving money? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is very doubtful that that disparity saves much money given the higher health-care costs that are incurred as a consequence of low health standards amongst many Maori. I can report that publications due to come out in the near future will show that those disparities are being reduced under this Government. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister confirm that one of the most important ways to prepare our economy for the demographic changes is to have a skilled and motivated workforce here in New Zealand and can he also confirm that one of the most debilitating factors for our economy has been that so many skilled and motivated workers have in the past 6 years got up and moved to Australia because the wage gap has widened from 20 percent to 33 percent under his watch; if he cares so much about those issues what does he intend to do about them before he retires? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes and no. I can confirm that we have maintained net in-migration of 10000 a year that we show a net in-migration of skilled people and that throughout every year in the 1990s under a National Government out-migration to Australia increased in net terms including in the 2 years after tax cuts. 
Shane Jones 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports on why alternative strategies may be short-sighted and unsustainable? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. The Monetary Policy Statement from the Reserve Bank highlights the current inflationary risk facing the economy. In such an environment it is clear that large-scale tax cuts without corresponding expenditure reductions would fuel inflation and increase interest rates as a former Governor of the Reserve Bank would himself have said when he was the Governor of the Reserve Bank.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3456] 
2.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What steps is he taking to ensure families have access to quality affordable housing? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Budget 2006 takes the total funding for State house acquisition to $659 million over the next 3 years when we plan to acquire an additional 2000 State houses. The Labour-led Government believes quality affordable housing is fundamental to the health and well-being of families and communities—unlike National which sold 13000 State houses in the 1990s mostly to developers not tenants. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What reports has the Minister received on the value of State houses? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have seen a report that describes the building of State houses as “economic vandalism” and states that land has a lot more potential than just somewhere to build a bunch of State houses. I have also seen a report that states that housing policy is not important does not require a party leader’s time and does not have financial implications. The first statement was from John Key who by the way grew up in a State house and the second admission from Don Brash confirmed that the National Party cares only about money not people. 
Tariana Turia 
: Tena tatou te Whare. What strategies has the Minister developed to ensure a Maori person earning the median income of $23600 can service a mortgage of $275000 which is the median price for a house in the Waikato Bay of Plenty and Gisborne region at 8.2 percent over 25 years? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: This Government has embarked on addressing the needs of low-income people in a wide variety of ways—not least of all the Working for Families package which brings a lot more cash into low-income families. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Minister received any reports of any National Party MPs who grew up in very expensive houses opposing building very expensive houses in their electorate or is it only people who grew up in State houses opposing State housing developments that he has heard about? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: None whatsoever.
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3455] 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Energy? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does she have confidence in the security of power supply to the Auckland region; if not what steps will she take and when will she take them so that she can express such confidence? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Like all Aucklanders I am very concerned that this single event did trigger a stop in the supply to Auckland. Accordingly I have asked for a report to be at the Cabinet policy committee tomorrow morning. The Minister of Energy is asking Ministry of Economic Development officials the Electricity Commission and Transpower to supply reports as quickly as possible. If there is a need to change policy that can be done but it may be that Transpower needs to speed up some investment around the Otahuhu substation. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why when Dr Keith Turner Managing Director of Government-owned Meridian Energy advised last year that “New Zealand’s electricity grid is so overworked that some lines cannot be taken out for servicing. That is unheard of in the Western developed world.” did no one in her Government take this to be a serious warning from a very senior energy expert and why is it that in the intervening period no one in her Government has taken any action as a result? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: On the contrary improving transmission on the grid into Auckland is a very high priority for the Government. It might be rather nice if National MPs like Judith Collins and Lindsay Tisch did not put every obstacle in the way. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is she aware of the statement made by her Minister of Energy to the Parliament last November following Dr Keith Turner’s observations that “the problem is not as bad as the member would have others believe” and does this still represent the official position of her Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The transmission system needs an upgrade. The Minister however has not had an outage unlike the Leader of the Opposition who took 23½ hours to put out a statement on the matter. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Prime Minister sought any costings of what it would take to ensure that every electricity system in the country was duplicated so that even a freak storm bringing down a wire could never cause an outage and has she had any advice from the leader of the National Party as to whether they would be prepared to forgo tax cuts in order to pay for it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think the cost of doing that doubling of all systems would be absolutely incalculable but I understand that voodoo economics as proclaimed by the National Party says we can cut taxes and spend more on absolutely everything. So voodoo economics lives on in the National Party. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How many years does Labour have to be in office before it starts delivering solutions instead of procrastinating and prevaricating? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This Government has delivered immensely more investment in energy.
Carter Chris: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 2 May and Question No. 3 to Minister 3 May 
Carter Chris: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 2 May and Question No. 3 to Minister 3 May 
[Volume:631;Page:3455] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 It has come to my attention that my answers to oral question No. 8 on 2 May 2006 and to oral question No. 3 on 3 May 2006 were incorrect. In answer to questions from Phil Heatley MP I said that the chair of Housing New Zealand Corporation had informed me promptly of allegations made by a former contractor. I also confirmed my answers in reply to a written question from Mr Heatley. Mr Snedden the chair has now advised me that he has discovered that he was sent a fax containing the settlement agreement on 24 March 2006 12 days earlier than he originally advised. I am therefore taking the first available opportunity in the House to correct my answers. I have also lodged a corrected answer to the written question asked by Mr Heatley.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 2 May and Question No. 3 to Minister 3 May 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 2 May and Question No. 3 to Minister 3 May 
[Volume:631;Page:3455] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 8 to Minister 2 May and Question No. 3 to Minister 3 May 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 It has come to my attention that my answers to oral question No. 8 on 2 May 2006 and to oral question No. 3 on 3 May 2006 were incorrect. In answer to questions from Phil Heatley MP I said that the chair of Housing New Zealand Corporation had informed me promptly of allegations made by a former contractor. I also confirmed my answers in reply to a written question from Mr Heatley. Mr Snedden the chair has now advised me that he has discovered that he was sent a fax containing the settlement agreement on 24 March 2006 12 days earlier than he originally advised. I am therefore taking the first available opportunity in the House to correct my answers. I have also lodged a corrected answer to the written question asked by Mr Heatley.
Brash Don: Points of Order — Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Brash Don: Points of Order — Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:631;Page:3455] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Points of Order — Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Points of Order — Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:631;Page:3455] 
Tuesday 13 June 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Enterprises—Expansion into New Business Areas Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali—Expulsion 
Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Enterprises—Expansion into New Business Areas Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali—Expulsion 
[Volume:631;Page:3471] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
State-owned Enterprises—Expansion into New Business Areas 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a number of applications seeking a debate under Standing Order 380. The first from Gordon Copeland relates to a change in policy for State-owned enterprises regarding their expansion into new business areas. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I do not feel that it requires the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. There will be other parliamentary opportunities to explore the implications of this change.  
Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali—Expulsion 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The second application is from the Hon Murray McCully relating to a decision to expel Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali. The expulsion is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However again I am unable to see why the decision to expel this particular individual requires the immediate attention of the House by way of urgent debate. These applications are declined.
Vote: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3614] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. 
Ayes 80 
Ardern(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
King A(P) 
Smith N(P) 
Auchinvole(P) 
Dean  
King C(P) 
Stewart  
Bennett D (P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Mackey  
Street  
Bennett P(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton  
Benson-Pope(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Flavell  
Mapp  
te Heuheu(P) 
Blue  
Foss  
Mark  
Tisch  
Blumsky  
Goff(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard  
Borrows(P) 
Goodhew  
Paraone(P) 
Tolley  
Brash(P) 
Goudie  
Parker(P) 
Tremain(P) 
Brown  
Guy(P) 
Peachey  
Wagner  
Burton  
Harawira   
Peters(P) 
Wilkinson   
Carter D(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Pettis(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Carter J(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Power(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hayes  
Rich(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Henare  
Ririnui(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Clarkson  
Hide(P) 
Roy H(P) 
Coleman(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Collins(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Connell(P) 
Hutchison   
Simich  
Teller: 
Cullen(P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L(P) 
Chadwick   
Noes 38 
Anderton(P) 
Fairbrother   
Kedgley(P) 
Turei(P) 
Barker(P) 
Fenton  
Laban(P) 
Turner(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Field(P) 
Locke  
Worth(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Finlayson   
Mallard(P) 
Yates(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Moroney  
Carter C(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
O'Connor   
Copeland  
Gosche(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Roy E(P) 
Teller: 
English(P) 
Jones(P) 
Tanczos  
Hughes  
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.referred to Commerce Committee
Vote: Resource Management (Security for Costs)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Security for Costs)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3601] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Security for Costs) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Woolerton R Doug: Resource Management (Security for Costs)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Resource Management (Security for Costs)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3593] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will not support the Resource Management (Security for Costs) Amendment Bill either. My memory goes back to an intellectual young man in the National Party called Simon Upton for whom I did heaps of work in the Raglan electorate years ago. I remember him talking about this issue a lot in those days and so it came to pass. The idea behind the Resource Management Act was to allow local people to make decisions for other local people and that has proved to be the case. 
It is true that at times the legislation is a problem for people with large developments in mind who propose changes of land use and that sort of thing. That is true. Just east of Hamilton East where I reside is the site of a proposed power line which has been updated to 400 kilowatts or some such measurement—I do not know what it is called—to feed Auckland. People are protesting about that. We do not believe that people should be constrained in any way because they do not have the money to come up against not only private people with money but in many cases Government corporations State-owned enterprises or other bodies of that nature. Fonterra which operates in the rural environment comes to mind also. It is important as the previous speaker said not only that justice is done but that justice is affordable for everyone. We cannot have justice just for those who can afford it. 
We have in this day and age many many more corporates of a size that could not even be contemplated back when the Resource Management Act was brought into being. Therefore it is important that local people—individuals—have the ability to speak out against these big institutions. Also something that would be sad and that we do not want to see is a return to the days when people took other actions outside of a court—like laying down on railway tracks or in front of bulldozers or chaining themselves to trees. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s pathetic. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Well that is what people did and the National Party wants to go back to those days. We in New Zealand First would sooner retain a situation whereby people can go about legitimate protest in a proper way and have it resolved lawfully in a court rather than have to resort to acts of physical intervention. So New Zealand First will not support this bill even going to a select committee. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s a disgrace. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: No it is not. It is very good; it is responsible.
Vote: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3589] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.referred to Local Government and Environment Committee
Smith Nick: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3578] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill is a garbage bill. It is PC rubbish that deserves to be thrown straight in the trash can. It is about wasting money wasting paper wasting energy and—most important—wasting time. 
Let me identify some of the stupid provisions in this bill. Clause 59 requires that every single business and other organisation in New Zealand has a waste management plan. That amounts to 200000 plans that will have to be produced around New Zealand. Let us take a typical small business. People who have one-employee businesses will be required under Nandor’s bill to prepare a waste management plan that determines the methods by which their waste hierarchy will operate within their business. It will require them to identify and separate all their rubbish at source and to determine the fraction that is reusable recoverable or recyclable. 
That measure is a farce and a joke and I cannot believe the Labour Government would be so stupid as to back such garbage. Only last week I heard Lianne Dalziel rabbiting on about reducing compliance costs for business. How could requiring 200000 small businesses not only to write a waste management plan but also to have it approved by their local council do anything other than add to the red tape and bureaucracy we have in New Zealand? 
But it gets worse. Let us look at clause 59. It requires that every single product sold in a store must have—and I will read from the clause—an information sheet that is “41 cm by 29 cm” with “a minimum print font size of 24 points” explaining how the product can be recycled reused or disposed of. I asked staff at my local supermarket how many products it has. It has 16000 products. The length of the poster wall at my local supermarket would need to be 6.6 kilometres long to be able to meet the requirements of this bill. It is truly extraordinary and truly wasteful. A 6.6-kilometre poster would be required for that business to be able to meet the requirements of this bill. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I seek leave and ask for the indulgence of the House for the member who is speaking to have a slight break so he can get his voice back and to then resume his speech without time being deducted. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The member may rest for a short while. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I thank the members of the House for their indulgence.
Vote: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3576] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Tolley Anne: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — Second Reading 
Tolley Anne: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3576] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just bring it to the Maori Party’s attention that its local candidate in the last election is actually a member of the Gisborne District Council which is the promoter of this bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that.
Turner Judy: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3573] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to add our support to the second reading of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill and to commend both the local MPs who have worked to see it pass. 
The legislation is not controversial. It reflects what local people want and also I suspect what Alfred Cox himself would have wanted. I know very little about Alfred Cox but he obviously had a great community spirit and wanted to see land set aside for people to enjoy. I think that even though flea markets include commercial transactions there is a lot more to them than the chance to buy some veggies. Going to a flea market is a social occasion and I think it still very much reflects the intention of the donor Mr Cox. I also think the use of the park for the visitor information centre again provides an opportunity to promote recreation in the area. Again I believe that is very much in keeping with Mr Cox’s intentions. 
I do share the disappointment that the bill cannot proceed through all its remaining stages. There seems to be no reason for it not to so the United Future members share that disappointment. We look forward to another members’ day and we continue to support this bill.
Bradford Sue: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — Second Reading 
Bradford Sue: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3573] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Briefly on behalf of the Green Party I offer our support also for the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. As always where local people want something to happen we are right behind it. We take a particular interest in this bill in relation to the fact that the park is where Gisborne people have their flea market every weekend. We know that the place is a great source of cheap produce and other goods for anybody but particularly for low-income people. Knowing the socio-economic demographic of much of the Gisborne district I think it is really important that we are supporting those people’s rights to be able to buy goods locally and more cheaply than they might be able to access elsewhere. It would be somewhat ridiculous if we denied local people the ability to do that. 
We are pleased to support this bill. Like others in this House such as the bill’s sponsor Anne Tolley I also wish that we were seeing this bill through its third reading today. It is ridiculous that we are not because it is a very simple matter. But I am sure it will go through very quickly on the next members’ day.