edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Twyford Phil: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Twyford Phil: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3405] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 Before we were temporarily diverted by the interesting case of Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga I was saying how important the creation of the Auckland Council is to our vision for the future of Auckland. There is no doubt on this side of the Chamber that we believe in a unitary authority; we believe that Auckland needs to speak with one voice. That is the area where we agree with the Government but there are many areas where we disagree. 
It is a shame that in this important constitutional process the National - ACT Government is in the process of gerrymandering the electoral format in order to permanently install its mates and its cronies in Auckland government. It is a shame that the National - ACT Government is going about gutting local democracy for one-third of this country’s population. It is completely blindly and wilfully ignoring the thoughtful recommendations of the royal commission about the second tier and is putting in place a cacophony of community boards with no real powers and no real resources. It is a shame that no thought is being given to the protection of local assets like the Port of Auckland the transport infrastructure and the water company. They are there like jewels in the crown ready for picking off by some future administration. It is a shame that the National - ACT Government has shafted its partner the Maori Party by completely ignoring the recommendations of the royal commission for Maori representation. 
But more than that there is the undemocratic way that this whole process has been managed by the National Government. It is bulldozing this bill through the House under urgency with no significant consultation which is in breach of the National Party’s campaign promise to consult the people of Auckland on the findings of the royal commission. Aucklanders’ democratic rights are being confiscated. This legislation is basically a coup against democracy. It is stripping the powers of dozens and dozens of officials who only 18 months ago were elected by Aucklanders. Now they will have to go cap in hand to Rodney Hide’s appointed mates and cronies on the Auckland Transition Agency if they want so much as a pencil sharpener. It is shame that the Auckland Council councillors eight of whom will be elected at large—[ 
Interruption 
] The “Little Emperor” from Epsom is telling 1.4 million Aucklanders where they can shove their democratic rights. When an Auckland citizen wants to get an audience—
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Pecuniary Interest—Member's Right to Vote 
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Pecuniary Interest—Member's Right to Vote 
[Volume:654;Page:3405] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Last evening prior to the suspension of the sitting at midnight members raised points of order about whether a member who is a member of a local authority affected by this bill should have declared this as a financial interest. The members suggested that such an interest should disqualify the member from participating in debate or voting on this bill. The Chairperson undertook to consider these points further. The points of order raised by the members are not sustained for two reasons. First under Standing Order 160(2)(b) a financial interest does not include any interest held by a member as one of a class of persons who hold public office. Second even if it were decided that the member held a financial interest there is no rule that would prevent the member from participating in debate or voting.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:654;Page:3405] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave of Parliament to authorise the presiding officer to appoint a temporary Chair notwithstanding any proscription against that in the Standing Orders. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Thank you very much.
Speaker’s Rulings — Pecuniary Interest—Member's Right to Vote 
Speaker’s Rulings — Pecuniary Interest—Member's Right to Vote 
[Volume:654;Page:3405] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Pecuniary Interest—Member's Right to Vote 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Last evening prior to the suspension of the sitting at midnight members raised points of order about whether a member who is a member of a local authority affected by this bill should have declared this as a financial interest. The members suggested that such an interest should disqualify the member from participating in debate or voting on this bill. The Chairperson undertook to consider these points further. The points of order raised by the members are not sustained for two reasons. First under Standing Order 160(2)(b) a financial interest does not include any interest held by a member as one of a class of persons who hold public office. Second even if it were decided that the member held a financial interest there is no rule that would prevent the member from participating in debate or voting.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:654;Page:3405] 
Wednesday 13 May 2009 
( 
continued on Friday 15 May 2009 part 1 
) 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave of Parliament to authorise the presiding officer to appoint a temporary Chair notwithstanding any proscription against that in the Standing Orders. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Thank you very much.
Vote: Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5740] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5726] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Carter John: Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter John: Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5716] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the time which is about 1 minute before we break for dinner and to save interrupting the erudite speech from the next speaker who happens to be myself I wonder whether the House would mind lifting 1 minute early and resuming again at 7.30 so that I can then give a 5-minute contribution without interruption. I seek the leave of the House so to do. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Ryall Tony: AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 3 to Minister 
Ryall Tony: AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 3 to Minister 
[Volume:656;Page:5713] 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was 31 July not 31 August in my statement which I would like to correct. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Let us start again. I ask the Minister to seek leave with the correct document and the date so that we can put it to the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes I seek leave to correct my personal explanation. The date was 31 July not 31 August. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The date that I was referring to should have been 31 July not 31 August which of course has not happened. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for clarifying that.
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5713] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure and delight to speak on the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill. But let me start by saying that I am a little disappointed in the bill— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Disappointing. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No disappointed. The reason that I am a bit disappointed is that actually I have had rather high hopes for Mr Phil— 
Debate interrupted.
Ryall Tony: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 3 to Minister 
Ryall Tony: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 3 to Minister 
[Volume:656;Page:5712] 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal statement to clarify an answer given in the House earlier today. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Earlier this afternoon I told the House that I had not received a draft copy of the independent report of the ministerial review group. On reflection I need to clarify that statement as it was based on a literal interpretation of the question. It is correct that I did not get a draft of the full report. However I did receive some early drafts of part of the report. A staff member also received a draft copy of annex 6 and I will table these at the end of my statement. 
The material covered about 50 pages of what turned out to be a 190-page report. I received the ministerial review group final report on Friday 31 August the due date. Dr Horn advised me that he had discovered some typographical errors and delivered a corrected copy the following Monday. Dr Horn advises me that no recommendations or content were changed. I am aware that a table of contents and biographical details were inserted over the weekend by Dr Horn. I maintained regular contact with Dr Horn and members of the ministerial review group including having a dinner with them. As the Acting Prime Minister said today the Minister of Health responsibly discussed with the review group what recommendations it was making. I want to make it clear that at no stage as I said in the House today did I issue any instructions that recommendations be changed and I apologise to the House for any incorrect impression given by my answer earlier today. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I seek leave to table four documents. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just before that can we have it clarified that it is the full draft report received by his office by a staff member on the Friday that he— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to respond. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No it is not that. These are the drafts that I received. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: They are the drafts that the Minister received. Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5710] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion not agreed to.
Barker Rick: Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5703] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No that is not possible. The call is for Metiria Turei. If she is not here to take the call the call moves to the next speaker. Should Metiria Turei turn up some time later she is free to seek the leave of the House to complete her call. If the House agrees that will be the case. This is her spot but the time has moved.
Chadwick Steve: Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5703] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am certainly happy to take a quick call while we are waiting for Metiria to arrive in the Chamber.
Graham Kennedy: Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill — First Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5703] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Ms Turei will be on her way. She is otherwise disposed at the moment. Is it possible for her to take her call later?
Barker Rick: Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5703] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: When the bill was debated last Metiria Turei was speaking. She has 3 minutes remaining should she wish to take them.
McCully Murray: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
McCully Murray: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5703] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I move  
That the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Kaye Nikki: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Kaye Nikki: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5692] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be supporting this private bill the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill. In fact I have been champing at the bit to get up and speak on it. The Rugby World Cup will be the largest sporting event ever held in New Zealand. The estimated contribution is I think about $500 million in additional GDP to the New Zealand economy including $240 million to the Auckland economy. 
I start by acknowledging a few people. The Hon Murray McCully has already acknowledged Mr Mallard’s contribution over a number of years to debate about the stadium and I also acknowledge his contribution. I acknowledge the contributions from a number of entities such as the New Zealand Rugby Union and the ASB Community Trust to this redevelopment. The redevelopment is about having a world-class venue for Auckland. The venue has a capacity of 60000 and I think it is important to acknowledge that it is not about just the Rugby World Cup. This stadium will be around for many generations of New Zealanders so we will have a world-class venue for other cultural events. So I am very pleased to support this legislation. It is good legislation. The select committee recommended a change to the commencement date so that the Act will come into force 30 days after it receives the Royal assent. The real purpose of that change was to ensure that as early as possible we allow appropriate governance and management operations to be sorted out prior to the completion of the redevelopment. 
I do not intend to give a very large contribution but I want to acknowledge that the development is about more than just the Rugby World Cup although a huge benefit to the New Zealand economy will come from the Rugby World Cup. The bill is good legislation that is supported across the House. The benefits are massive not only to Auckland but also to New Zealand. I am very pleased to support this bill not only for the people of Auckland Central who will have the benefit of many rugby fans walking the streets of Ponsonby down to party central which I know members opposite are so supportive of but also for the local community of Mount Eden. I know that there will be improved integration for the local community through enhancements in transport landscaping urban design and other park amenities. 
So I commend this bill to the House and I congratulate the Hon Murray McCully on this private bill. I congratulate all other members who have been involved in this. I look forward to the Rugby World Cup and I look forward to the massive contribution it will make to the New Zealand economy and I look forward to the contribution the new stadium will make for generations to come.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
[Volume:656;Page:5675] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Jeanette Fitzsimons seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s decision to commit to an emissions reduction target range of 10 percent to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Yesterday I considered a similar application from Charles Chauvel. It was declined in favour of another application of more immediate significance—the decision to commit SAS personnel to Afghanistan. 
An application for an urgent debate that is set aside under Standing Order 382 may be submitted on the following day. However there is no guarantee that it will be accepted for debate on that day. The target is a conditional one. Yesterday there were two questions for oral answer on the matter. There is a select committee inquiry under way. As I said yesterday there will be further opportunities to debate the matter. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The matter is one that can be considered over a longer time frame. The application is therefore declined.
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:656;Page:5675] 
2. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill 
: What is the current status of the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill? 
PHIL TWYFORD (Member in charge of the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 My member’s bill is due for its first reading. The bill would require the approval of a majority of Aucklanders in a referendum before the new super-city could sell off publicly owned assets. I look forward to the Minister of Local Government and his ACT colleagues voting for it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member was asked what the status of the bill is. He does not need to go on to that material. 
David Shearer 
: What further processes is the member expecting the bill to go through? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I sincerely hope that the bill will be referred to a select committee this afternoon and it will be if ACT or National vote for it. ACT members are very keen on referenda and it would seem that this bill is an obvious candidate— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has answered the question. That is sufficient.
Beaumont Carol: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Beaumont Carol: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:656;Page:5675] 
1. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill 
: What is the current status of the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill? 
DARIEN FENTON (Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 The bill has been introduced in the House and is awaiting its first reading. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Has the member delayed the first reading of the bill? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes I have delayed the first reading to give all political parties including National time to consider whether they will support this important bill’s referral to the select committee where the issues of redundancy protection to tide workers over during hard times can be properly debated.
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:656;Page:5673] 
11.  
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What policy solutions are being considered to respond to the comments of the Tax Working Group regarding GST that “Increasing the rate could impact on lower-income or vulnerable households especially in the short run”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Tax Working Group is deliberating and will be until later in the year. The Government will not consider any options it proposes until after it reports back in December. I note however that Budget 2009 ensured that the most vulnerable in our society were protected despite the change in the economic outlook and that should be a good guide to the attitude of the Government. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does the Minister consider it socially responsible for the group of experts in the Tax Working Group to deliberately design a scheme that discriminates against low-income and vulnerable households; if so what areas of Government would he expect will need to pick up the discriminatory effects of this scheme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would refer the member’s concerns to comments made I think by Susan St John who is well-known for her economic work in this area to do with poverty and income equality. She said publicly that she was impressed with the transparent way in which the working group was dealing with issues of equality and income equity and I can assure the member that when the Government considers proposals from this group it will certainly be taking account of equity issues. 
Rahui Katene 
: What are the implications of removing GST from food and of offsetting the tax take by increasing GST on tobacco and alcohol? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member clearly has a proposition here and I would welcome the working group looking at it. We can signal that generally the Government prefers having a uniform GST with no exemptions. If issues to do with lack of income are to be dealt with then those can be dealt with by other means and I know that the member’s party is advocating an increase in GST on tobacco and alcohol as a health-related measure. 
Stuart Nash 
: Can the Minister guarantee that he will not introduce any further changes to the tax system that will benefit mainly those on high incomes given that the tax changes he has introduced so far disproportionately benefit those on high incomes as he has repealed the tax cuts Labour legislated for that would have benefited those on lower incomes? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not agree with the member’s analysis at all and that analysis has been disputed in this House before. What I can confirm for the member is that the Government in considering making change or in fact making no change would consider issues of fairness.
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:656;Page:5672] 
10.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he support the right of Aucklanders to decide on the future ownership of publicly owned assets under the super-city? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Yes I believe in local decisions being made at the local level not only in Auckland but also right across New Zealand. The Local Government Act 2002 already requires councils to consult the public on any plans to buy or sell strategic assets. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister stand by his proposal that councils undertake referenda on decisions that are significant or irreversible; if so does he believe that the sale of publicly owned assets by the Auckland super-city would be significant or irreversible? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I certainly stand by my statements. That is one of the issues that we have under review and are discussing with Local Government New Zealand councils and other stakeholders now. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement on  
Campbell Live 
 last night that the Prime Minister has ruled out the sale of Auckland’s publicly owned assets? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes.
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:656;Page:5670] 
8.  
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister for Sport and Recreation 
: Will he guarantee that no schools will be financially worse off as a result of the Government’s Kiwisport initiative; if not why not? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 Yes. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Will he now guarantee that programmes such as Stage Challenge kapahaka the ASB Polyfest and the Pasifika Festival will receive no less funding next year than they did this year as the Minister of Education has just indicated; if not why not? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I advise the member to direct questions related to the education budget to the Minister of Education.
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:656;Page:5670] 
7.  
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Has she received any reports from the police regarding methamphetamine? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. I have received a report from the police that shows an arrested methamphetamine user earns on average $5623 each month from crime. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What are the police doing to address the link between drugs and criminal activity? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The police are actively seeking to reduce the supply of methamphetamine by targeting dealers and dismantling clan-labs. Police national clandestine laboratory response teams are based in Auckland and Wellington and they support all police districts to tackle the problem of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Has the Minister seen any reports about the number of clan-labs dismantled recently? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. I have received a report that shows that 13 clan-labs were dismantled in June 2009 alone. That was more than double the number dismantled during the same period in 2008. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How does the Minister expect the cuts of $21 million and more than 300 cars from the police fleet to assist police in continuing to battle the methamphetamine problem? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am sure that the 600 extra police will do a fantastic job which is what we always expect from our New Zealand police. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How does the Minister expect the raiding of other police districts to put police into the Counties-Manukau Police District will help the police in other districts to continue to battle the P problem? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Frankly I do not know why the member insists on making such silly statements. There will be 600 extra police for the whole of New Zealand and 300 of those police will go to Counties-Manukau. Nobody is being taken out of any other district to police Counties-Manukau. I think it is quite irresponsible of the member to make such silly statements in the House. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Minister been advised by the police of the drug abuse that causes the most criminal behaviour in New Zealand; if so can she confirm that that drug is alcohol not methamphetamine? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Certainly the police advise me that the vast majority of the criminal cases they have to deal with involve the misuse of alcohol. However many people will be aware that unfortunately methamphetamine has taken hold in certain parts of New Zealand and that gangs in particular have been able to become extremely rich off the proceeds.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:656;Page:5667] 
5.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: On what day was Immigration New Zealand’s investigation file concerning Kanwaljit Bakshi made over to the New Zealand Police? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised that the case was first referred to the police on 20 July 2009. The file was subsequently handed over on 28 July. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: When a copy of the first investigation report was made public why did the Minister then ask his officials at the Department of Labour to investigate why the Official Information Act request had not gone through his office? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: In my office as in yours when you were a Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker may well have been a Minister but right now he is not. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: It is a common approach in Ministers’ offices under this Government as it was under the previous Government that Ministers operate under a no-surprises policy with regard to their departments. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Minister accept that the second investigation into Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi arose only because officials released information concerning the first investigation to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and that had that information not been released no second investigation would be under way? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The consistent approach right throughout this matter is that if information comes to light that warrants further investigation Immigration New Zealand should proceed in that manner. I have made that very clear to the department. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Will any future Official Information Act requests concerning Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi be handled by departmental officials alone or will the Minister continue to require his officials to pass any such requests to his ministerial office for his personal perusal? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: All Official Information Act requests that go to the department apart from those of a very minor statistical nature come to the attention of the Minister’s office under the no-surprises policy. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why was a planned interview of Department of Labour officials arranged in June by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 called off by the Minister’s political adviser Mr James Watson? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: It was not called off. The department can interview whom it likes when it likes with regard to any investigation. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Minister understand that the more he seeks to vet Official Information Act requests regarding his colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi and the more he interferes with the free access of the media to his officials regarding his colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi the more likely it is that he will be viewed as protecting his colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The member over there is making an allegation and I invite him to make it outside the House.
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:656;Page:5663] 
1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. They are all hard-working and competent Ministers who understand the large challenges faced by this country. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did he agree with the Minister of Health’s decision to sanitise the report of the independent ministerial review group by removing controversial material from it before he was forced to release it this week and only after the  
Dominion Post 
 reported some of its contents on the front page? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think that is a bit of a conspiracy theory. The Minister of Health has set about tidying up the mess left by the previous Government and of course some of it will be controversial. What does the member expect? 
Hon Annette King 
: How can he and the Minister of Health claim to have released an independent report on health when the Minister of Health fiddled with the group’s recommendations and removed some of its independent views from the report in an attempt to hide an emerging National agenda of privatisation and broken promises? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am quite sure that the Minister of Health responsibly discussed with the review group what recommendations it was making but that member needs to understand the size of the mess she has left. It will take a big effort to turn it round. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why did the Minister of Health remove from the independent report comments that stated that spending health dollars on improving life expectancy will be an investment in growth only if people work longer before they draw taxpayer-funded superannuation; and what does his Government have to hide when everyone knows that is its view? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would agree with the Minister that the line of questions is rubbish—making it up probably. The fact is that to deliver better smarter health services to New Zealanders means we must change the health system that the previous Government left behind because the system that Government left chewed up money without much result. 
Hon Annette King 
: Will the Prime Minister require the Minister of Health to tell doctors and nurses that he edited out of the independent report comments that wage restraint was needed from them as well as changes to the industrial relations settings and when will the Government announce its real agenda of wage freezes on their salaries? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is hardly a secret that the Government considers wage restraint to be quite important. In fact I recall the Minister of Finance making that statement in this House in full view of the public over the last several months.
Curran Clare: Tabling of Documents — Enviroschools—Card Addressed to Minister of Education Protesting Funding Cuts 
Curran Clare: Tabling of Documents — Enviroschools—Card Addressed to Minister of Education Protesting Funding Cuts 
[Volume:656;Page:5663] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a card signed by dozens of school students in Dunedin and Wellington calling on the Minister of Education Anne Tolley not to cut funding for Enviroschools. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Brownlee Gerry: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:656;Page:5663] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Subsequent to discussions and decisions at the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill following its second reading to be set down for its third reading forthwith without debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.
AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 3 to Minister 
AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 3 to Minister 
[Volume:656;Page:5713] 
AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was 31 July not 31 August in my statement which I would like to correct. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Let us start again. I ask the Minister to seek leave with the correct document and the date so that we can put it to the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes I seek leave to correct my personal explanation. The date was 31 July not 31 August. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The date that I was referring to should have been 31 July not 31 August which of course has not happened. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for clarifying that.
Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5713] 
Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure and delight to speak on the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill. But let me start by saying that I am a little disappointed in the bill— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Disappointing. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No disappointed. The reason that I am a bit disappointed is that actually I have had rather high hopes for Mr Phil— 
Debate interrupted.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 3 to Minister 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 3 to Minister 
[Volume:656;Page:5712] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal statement to clarify an answer given in the House earlier today. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Earlier this afternoon I told the House that I had not received a draft copy of the independent report of the ministerial review group. On reflection I need to clarify that statement as it was based on a literal interpretation of the question. It is correct that I did not get a draft of the full report. However I did receive some early drafts of part of the report. A staff member also received a draft copy of annex 6 and I will table these at the end of my statement. 
The material covered about 50 pages of what turned out to be a 190-page report. I received the ministerial review group final report on Friday 31 August the due date. Dr Horn advised me that he had discovered some typographical errors and delivered a corrected copy the following Monday. Dr Horn advises me that no recommendations or content were changed. I am aware that a table of contents and biographical details were inserted over the weekend by Dr Horn. I maintained regular contact with Dr Horn and members of the ministerial review group including having a dinner with them. As the Acting Prime Minister said today the Minister of Health responsibly discussed with the review group what recommendations it was making. I want to make it clear that at no stage as I said in the House today did I issue any instructions that recommendations be changed and I apologise to the House for any incorrect impression given by my answer earlier today. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I seek leave to table four documents. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just before that can we have it clarified that it is the full draft report received by his office by a staff member on the Friday that he— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to respond. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No it is not that. These are the drafts that I received. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: They are the drafts that the Minister received. Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Urgent Debates Declined — Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
Urgent Debates Declined — Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
[Volume:656;Page:5675] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Jeanette Fitzsimons seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s decision to commit to an emissions reduction target range of 10 percent to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Yesterday I considered a similar application from Charles Chauvel. It was declined in favour of another application of more immediate significance—the decision to commit SAS personnel to Afghanistan. 
An application for an urgent debate that is set aside under Standing Order 382 may be submitted on the following day. However there is no guarantee that it will be accepted for debate on that day. The target is a conditional one. Yesterday there were two questions for oral answer on the matter. There is a select committee inquiry under way. As I said yesterday there will be further opportunities to debate the matter. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The matter is one that can be considered over a longer time frame. The application is therefore declined.
Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:656;Page:5663] 
Wednesday 19 August 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Subsequent to discussions and decisions at the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill following its second reading to be set down for its third reading forthwith without debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.
McClay Todd: International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill — First Reading 
McClay Todd: International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5748] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise this evening to briefly speak on the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill. I particularly want to talk about the great success that Green Party members seem to have in getting their bills out of the members’ bills ballot. We have had two of their bills tonight and if I cast my mind back to 2 weeks’ ago I think there were two then as well. I say to Dr Kennedy Graham who has brought this bill to this House in good faith and has put a lot of meaning into it that I would like to know how the Greens do it. They need to share a bit of the love around. You see I have my own bill in the ballot so perhaps tomorrow just before 12 p.m. I will cross the House and join the Greens for 5 minutes only to see whether I can get my bill out of the ballot. Indeed I will not be able to do that because if I did I am not sure I would sleep well tomorrow night. 
I commend Dr Graham for the work he has put into this bill. Having said that I say I will not be supporting the bill and I want to run through a few of the reasons for that. 
Debate interrupted.
Tabling of Documents — Enviroschools—Card Addressed to Minister of Education Protesting Funding Cuts 
Tabling of Documents — Enviroschools—Card Addressed to Minister of Education Protesting Funding Cuts 
[Volume:656;Page:5663] 
Tabling of Documents 
Enviroschools—Card Addressed to Minister of Education Protesting Funding Cuts 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a card signed by dozens of school students in Dunedin and Wellington calling on the Minister of Education Anne Tolley not to cut funding for Enviroschools. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5419] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Search and Surveillance Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5373] 
11.  
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What steps is the Government taking to accelerate the deployment of marine energy devices in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The Government has recently opened applications for the third round of the Marine Energy Deployment Fund which aims to have wave and tidal stream energy devices operating in New Zealand. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Why is the Government interested in accelerating the development of marine energy? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government would expect that marine energy would take quite some time to develop given that it is not in any significant commercial operation anywhere in the world. The fund was put together by the previous Government and we felt it was worth continuing with. New Zealand does have a very large coastline. There is opportunity to develop fast-moving waters which could result in tidal energy contributing to New Zealand’s energy requirements.
Davis Kelvin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Davis Kelvin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5372] 
10.  
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she still stand by her comments reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 1 August 2009 in relation to national standards in particular where she says that the system would not force teachers to meet a single predetermined standard as in the United States and Britain? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 No because that is not a direct quote from me. National standards will provide nationally consistent benchmarks that will assist teachers to make judgments about a student’s progress and achievement in literacy and numeracy. Teachers will continue to use evidence from a range of sources to inform their teaching and learning programmes. 
Kelvin Davis 
: How will the Minister expect teachers to report to parents in plain English whether their child has met a national standard that is not set at a specific level and will this not just add to parents’ confusion as to whether their child is achieving to the level he or she should? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I say to that member Kelvin Davis that if he were to look at some of the suggestions that were put in front of parents and educators during the consultation period and were to hear the comments from the many parents who took part in that consultation process he would see that they are very clear that the standards will be of huge assistance to them as parents in understanding what are the strengths and weaknesses of their children. 
Colin King 
: Why is the Government introducing national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: National standards are being introduced to provide clear expectations for children at primary school and to provide parents with simple plain language explanations of their children’s progress. That is what the parents tell us they want and that is what we are providing. Parents want to be involved in their children’s education and to do that they need to know how their child is progressing. 
Kelvin Davis 
: What is the point in just showing progress against the standard as the Minister stated in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 when the rate of progress towards a standard is more important but neither are of any use if a teacher does not know where the standard sits in the first place? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The national standards will provide very clear expectations of just what progress a student needs to make and the formative assessment by the teacher that takes place in the classroom will provide good results showing the progress that a child is making against those standards. 
Kelvin Davis 
: In relation to the Minister’s answer can she explain what her understanding of formative assessment is? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Formative assessment is an assessment technique that is widely used by New Zealand teachers and worldwide to inform the teaching and the learning that happens in a classroom. It is a continuous process of the assessment of the effectiveness of the teaching and the effect of learning on students.