edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3979] 
3.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is his department addressing problems regarding immigration compliance within the maritime industry; if so how? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Immigration 
: Yes by working with the fishing industry to strengthen policy on terms and conditions for foreign fishing crew while undertaking compliance activity. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that some employers in the fishing industry advertise jobs to New Zealanders at minimum wage have no takers so then seek to employ foreign workers under the approval in principle system; and if she does accept that will she concede that such a system is putting huge downward pressure on New Zealand wages and working conditions? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Government does take this issue very seriously and is taking positive steps to ensure that working conditions and wages paid to New Zealanders are not undermined in the way the member indicated. The intent of all immigration policy is to ensure that no New Zealanders are deprived of opportunities for employment to protect terms and conditions for New Zealand workers and to facilitate employers sourcing labour offshore if no New Zealanders are available. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House what is the Government strategy for foreign chartered vessels in New Zealand waters? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Government is facilitating a legitimate high-quality foreign charter fleet to complement the New Zealand fishing industry including ensuring that terms and conditions for New Zealand fishing crew are not undercut protecting all fishing crew from mistreatment and exploitation managing immigration risks and ensuring that no competitive advantage is gained over New Zealand crewed vessels. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that answer does the Minister share the New Zealand First view that jobs on fishing vessels should go to New Zealanders first and foremost and that with better wages conditions and training there would be a greater uptake of these jobs; and if she does share that view will she consider making it much more difficult for employers to engage foreign labour under the approval in principle scheme; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes. The Government has already taken action on this by tightening conditions around pay and pay deductions. I refer the member again to the basic intent of immigration policy: ensuring no New Zealanders are deprived of opportunities for employment to protect terms and conditions for New Zealand workers and to facilitate employers sourcing labour offshore if no New Zealanders are available.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4105] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 With a couple of minutes to go I want to introduce the Maori Party statement before we go off and have a break. Tena koe tena tatou katoa. 
In introducing our position on the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill I want to talk about one of the people involved in my own constituency in a historical context. I turn to one of our people whose name was Karauria Tiwaka Anaru also known as Claude who was born on 2 June 1901 at Raukokore in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Claude Anaru was appointed as a justice of the peace in 1947 and with the support of Mr C J Wright he was largely responsible for the formation of the Rotorua and District Justices of the Peace Association. Claude later became president and first life member of the Rotorua and District Justices of the Peace Association. He married Hanahira Riripotaka of Te Arawa who played a prominent part in the Waiariki branch of the Maori Women’s Welfare League and was also a justice of the peace. 
I use these examples—fine examples they are—in considering this particular bill. I understand that they were individuals of high integrity of considerable standing amongst our community people with a deep understanding of Maori culture language and whakapapa and with enormous expertise across health social services legal and tribal affairs. They demonstrated discipline. They represented the type of outstanding and upstanding member of the community we look for in justices of the peace. 
It is disappointing that such high ideals have clearly not been reflected in other JPs which has caused the new proposals endorsed in this bill. It is with some disillusionment that the Maori Party has become aware of the record of complaints kept by the Ministry of Justice about JPs including convictions for offences such as bankruptcy and personal conflict. We support the introduction of the new disciplinary regime although of course we are concerned at the eroding values that would see people destroy the trust and confidence that the public places in such roles. We believe that standards need to be upheld and that in the interests of excellent public service accountability and safety a consistent and transparent procedure for disciplinary action must be in place. 
It may well be that in the initial training in the role of justice of the peace—which is initiated in this bill—including the background to the history of these positions will assist in providing the context for the duties and responsibilities that a justice of the peace takes on. Indeed the Maori Party would suggest that the training component for the new provisions of this bill must go much further than simply administrative renewals of licences and updating the JPs on changes. We would recommend that a programme of cultural safety be introduced. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4102] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Kedgley Sue: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4099] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to speak briefly on the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill which the Green Party will be opposing. I did not sit on the Social Services Committee; my colleague Sue Bradford did. Our concerns echo almost identically the views expressed so eloquently by the Maori Party. We also share all the concerns articulated by Te Ururoa Flavell. The bill singles out and discriminates against beneficiaries when there is no need to because ample powers exist already. We believe the bill provides huge potential for undermining the privacy of that segment of our society. 
But the wider issue that really concerns the Greens is that for a Government that professes to be passionate about democracy this Government seems to be increasingly resorting to surveillance technology. Last week it was embracing microchipping technology; this week it is data-matching technology. We wonder why so much surveillance technology is being embraced by the Government. It seems not concerned that we seem to be adding just one little bit then another little bit and slowly laying the foundations for a surveillance society. Instead this society should be open democratic and trusting. 
We see the bill as being an unnecessary targeting of beneficiaries and the establishment of just another little step in the development of a surveillance society. We are extremely concerned about the undermining of privacy that this bill involves—and frankly why would we have a bill that simply targets one group in our society? We do not think a good reason has been put forward by the Government as to why we need this bill when ample powers exist already. 
We do not share the view of United Future that there is no potential for abuse of information data-matching. We think there is great potential and therefore we will be opposing the bill.
Jones Shane: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Jones Shane: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4093] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call in the third reading of this legislation. It is heartening to hear a speaker from the Opposition Anne Tolley repeat that National will be supporting its enactment. A pattern is emerging as National members have also agreed to support the reference of that fine legislation debated earlier the Telecommunications Amendment Bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
Firstly the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill 
is premised on a very important principle—the principle of ensuring that quality information is shared across agencies to ensure that expenditure is carried out in an efficient manner and that value is achieved as we spend taxpayers’ money. Secondly the bill adds substance to the proposal—and to the dream dare I say of all parties that are concerned about value for money I am sure—of achieving an approach to policy and implementation that causes Government departments to work together for the benefit of the target group and to ensure that at all times we are doing the best we can with funds that come from the taxpaying base. 
I stand and note that New Zealand First and United Future have already indicated they will support the bill because it further adds to the integrity of the benefit system but also strengthens an underlying principle. When we draw resources to help those who are very vulnerable in society let us ensure we draw what they require and that we draw them and use them in the most efficient way possible to uphold the integrity of the system and not damage the views of the taxpayer about how well funds are being spent to assist the most vulnerable segments in our society. I support the third reading of the bill.
Carter Chris: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Carter Chris: Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4091] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I move  
That the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I thank the Social Services Committee for its careful consideration of the bill. There were two written submissions on the bill and I would like to thank the submitters. 
The bill provides for information matching between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. It authorises the corporation to disclose to the ministry information relating to its tenants and tenancies. The information match between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development follows 2003 and 2004 Budget initiatives for new and extended information matches between various Government agencies and the Ministry of Social Development. 
The ministry has completed the implementation of a number of higher priority information matches with other agencies. Those matches have resulted in savings to taxpayers and have maintained the integrity of the income support system. The ministry has now engaged with Housing New Zealand Corporation to implement an information match. The information match will help to minimise overpayments of benefits and student allowances help the recovery of beneficiary and student debt arising from those overpayments and help with the detection of fraud. In addition to minimising overpayments that could result in ongoing repayments the information match may benefit tenants their partners and dependants by identifying that they are not receiving their correct entitlement to income support. 
Information-matching rules under the Privacy Act 1993 require that the individuals who are affected by the programme will be notified. Housing New Zealand Corporation will undertake targeted publicity before the implementation of the information-matching programme and throughout the operation of the programme to comply with the information-matching rules in the Privacy Act. All new and existing corporation tenants will be made aware that information supplied to it by tenants may be provided to the Ministry of Social Development. 
The bill renames the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 as the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992 to make it clear that the Act provides for tenancy matters. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Privacy Act 1993 to include Housing New Zealand Corporation and Housing New Zealand Ltd as specified agencies for the purpose of information sharing and to list the new information-matching provisions. 
In closing I say the bill extends information matching between agencies so as to improve the integrity of the income support system.
O'Connor Damien: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — First Reading 
O'Connor Damien: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4090] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Communications 
: I move  
That the Telecommunications Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
referred to Finance and Expenditure Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 6 November 2006 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4090] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Telecommunications Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4069] 
11.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on the progress towards addressing skill shortages in the labour force? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Investment by this Government in skills is clearly paying dividends. The latest  
Skills in the Labour Market 
 report recorded the largest fall in skill shortage indicators in 15 years. Further reports released by the Department of Labour today on 14 specific occupational trades show that the number of people achieving these trade qualifications each year has almost doubled from 1600 in 2001 to 3000 in 2005 and that the number of trainees enrolled in these trade qualifications has also doubled from 8000 in 2001 to 16000 in 2005. That is clear evidence of our success in rebuilding a training culture in this country after National destroyed the apprenticeship system. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What has been the cause of recent skill shortages? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Department of Labour advises me that the current cycle of shortages most likely began in the late 1990s due to the low level of trade training that occurred during the decade of the 1990s. Employers interviewed as part of these surveys indicated that changes to the apprenticeship system in the 1990s impacted negatively on the number of people entering training for trades. Labour has reversed that foolishness and is investing in the people and skills that the economy needs.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4068] 
10.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How much has the Ingram inquiry cost to date? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: As the Prime Minister has told the member in the past information on costs will be released when the inquiry is complete and all costs are known. She does not consider progress reports on costs to be appropriate as they could be deemed to be placing pressure on the inquiry. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that the cost for the first 4 months of the inquiry was approximately $30000 per month; if so has the inquiry originally set for 9 working days yet still uncompleted after 9 months now cost taxpayers more than a quarter of a million dollars? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The information on costs connected with the inquiry is not ready but it is perhaps useful to remind members opposite that inquiries are always expensive and that they call for at least four or five a day. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why was the head of the Prime Minister’s department unable to answer questions at the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week on the cost of the inquiry so far when the Prime Minister had to seek from Cabinet approval for an additional appropriation of $119681 to cover the cost of the inquiry for just the first 4 months and is clearly monitoring the costs closely? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Those costs come in from time to time as I am sure a number of the member’s colleagues will tell him. We will not know the final cost until the inquiry is complete. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Who is causing the delay in the completion of the report: Taito Phillip Field and his legal counsel Noel Ingram QC or the Prime Minister? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly not the Prime Minister. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If it is not the Prime Minister how much longer is she prepared to allow the inquiry to drag on at a cost to the taxpayer of roughly $1000 a day? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure that if the Prime Minister was to attempt to speed up the inquiry the Opposition would accuse her of interfering with its independence.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4065] 
7.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on the importance of investing in primary health? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. Last week’s  
New Zealand Medical Journal 
 suggested that about 10 percent of the health budget is spent on hospitalisations that could be avoided through earlier treatment and a focus on prevention. The study is a ringing endorsement of the Government’s Primary Health Care Strategy which takes its next step forward in 2 days’ time. We know that if we make it easier and more affordable to access primary care we can reduce pressure on our public hospitals and improve the health of our families. 
Maryan Street 
: What progress has been made in making primary health care more affordable for families? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: From Saturday the cost of seeing the doctor will fall by as much as $27 for New Zealanders in the 45-64 years age group. The cost of most prescription medicines will drop from $15 to $3. Both moves are ardently opposed by the National Party. We are now just 1 year away from universal access to affordable primary health care. This will be one of the Labour-led Government’s most significant achievements and is a reminder of what can be achieved when we invest in families instead of pouring money into tax cuts for the wealthy.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4057] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I note that the Minister of Corrections is not present in the House today although I see that the Associate Minister of Corrections is. I seek leave to have this question held over until the Minister of Corrections returns. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:632;Page:4057] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 18 July priority will be given to the start of the Appropriation (2006/07) Estimates Bill which is in total an 8-hour debate. The remainder of that debate will be held on Tuesday 25 July. For the remainder of the first week the Government intends to make progress on the first readings of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill the Business Law Reform Bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill and the remaining stages of the Protected Objects Amendment Bill and the Coroners Bill.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:632;Page:4057] 
Thursday 29 June 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 18 July priority will be given to the start of the Appropriation (2006/07) Estimates Bill which is in total an 8-hour debate. The remainder of that debate will be held on Tuesday 25 July. For the remainder of the first week the Government intends to make progress on the first readings of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill the Business Law Reform Bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill and the remaining stages of the Protected Objects Amendment Bill and the Coroners Bill.
Hughes Darren: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4187] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt you but during your ruling the list member Jackie Blue called out a swear word and directed it at another member in the Chamber—and if the National Party junior whip is going to be so sensitive about what people say in here then we will not have people sitting in the wrong seat throwing swear words around. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report progress. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Cosgrove Clayton: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4187] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It had better be helpful. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It will indeed. I must come clean. I was indeed talking about the leader of the National Party Don Brash and for that I do withdraw and apologise.
Tolley Anne: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4187] 
ANNE TOLLEY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not sure whether I heard the Minister correctly but if he made a disparaging comment about one of our members in particular our leader I think that was most inappropriate and I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I listened very carefully. It may have been clear to some but the speaker did not actually identify even closely the person he was talking about.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4183] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Transport be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Vote Transport agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4177] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Police be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Vote Police agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4165] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Education Review Office be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Vote Education Review Office agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4164] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Education be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Vote Education agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4156] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Crown Research Institutes be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 8 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Vote Crown Research Institutes agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4153] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Agriculture and Forestry be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 8 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Vote Agriculture and Forestry agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4149] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Finance be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Vote Finance agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4143] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4135] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Standing Orders provide for 8 hours of debate on the estimates contained in the Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill. Each member may have no more than two speeches of 5 minutes on each vote. The estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. As each vote is reached a question will be put that that vote stand part. If it is the wish of the Committee I will put the question on groups of votes by Minister until a vote is reached that members seek to debate. A separate question on this vote will then be proposed from the Chair.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Taito Phillip Field—Report of Dr Noel Ingram QC 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Taito Phillip Field—Report of Dr Noel Ingram QC 
[Volume:632;Page:4125] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Gerry Brownlee seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release of a report by Dr Noel Ingram QC into allegations made in respect of Taito Phillip Field. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and I accept it does warrant the immediate attention of the House. I therefore call on Gerry Brownlee to move that the House take note of this matter.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Lebanon—Recent Developments 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Lebanon—Recent Developments 
[Volume:632;Page:4125] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Keith Locke seeking an urgent debate on recent developments in Lebanon the efforts being made to evacuate New Zealanders from Lebanon and the impact of the unrest in Lebanon on the New Zealand economy. An application for an urgent debate must identify a particular case of recent occurrence that involves the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. A request to the British Government that it include New Zealanders in its evacuation planning does involve ministerial responsibility but such a request does not in itself give grounds for an urgent debate. I remind members that in lodging an urgent debate application they must be specific about the particular matter they wish to have debated and that the matter must involve ministerial responsibility.
Urgent Debates Declined — Lebanon—Recent Developments 
Urgent Debates Declined — Lebanon—Recent Developments 
[Volume:632;Page:4125] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Lebanon—Recent Developments 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Keith Locke seeking an urgent debate on recent developments in Lebanon the efforts being made to evacuate New Zealanders from Lebanon and the impact of the unrest in Lebanon on the New Zealand economy. An application for an urgent debate must identify a particular case of recent occurrence that involves the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. A request to the British Government that it include New Zealanders in its evacuation planning does involve ministerial responsibility but such a request does not in itself give grounds for an urgent debate. I remind members that in lodging an urgent debate application they must be specific about the particular matter they wish to have debated and that the matter must involve ministerial responsibility.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:632;Page:4124] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am a little concerned by your ruling that Mrs Wong is unable to pursue the issue of two Ministers dodging an answer to a question by each referring it to the other when it should be the right of all members of Parliament to get information from the Government. It should also be their right to raise a point of order in Parliament. Otherwise we could easily get into the situation whereby Ministers routinely decide not to answer questions in the 5-day period and simply wait until the member asking the question writes a letter to you you make some inquiries and you suggest that the Ministers had better get a bit of a shift along at which point they may then decide to provide an answer. I think it is a good discipline on Ministers to have to put up with members periodically questioning through the mechanism of points of order in the House why Ministers have not answered questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Of course all members can raise matters; I am merely pointing out what is the correct procedure to do so. If the member would please contact me with all the details then I will attend to the issue as quickly as I can.
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:632;Page:4124] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am seeking your help to resolve my problem of not being able to get my question for written answer No. 8465 answered by either the Minister of Immigration or the Minister for Tertiary Education. The question relates to a— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please write to me and I can address the issue. That applies to all members in the House. If members have difficulties with questions would they please write to me—that is the correct procedure—and I will deal with the issues as best I can. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the subject of my written question to which I could not get an answer from either Minister. It is a sample from a postcard campaign directed to the Hon David Cunliffe Minister of Immigration conducted by the Massey University Students Association. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am a little concerned by your ruling that Mrs Wong is unable to pursue the issue of two Ministers dodging an answer to a question by each referring it to the other when it should be the right of all members of Parliament to get information from the Government. It should also be their right to raise a point of order in Parliament. Otherwise we could easily get into the situation whereby Ministers routinely decide not to answer questions in the 5-day period and simply wait until the member asking the question writes a letter to you you make some inquiries and you suggest that the Ministers had better get a bit of a shift along at which point they may then decide to provide an answer. I think it is a good discipline on Ministers to have to put up with members periodically questioning through the mechanism of points of order in the House why Ministers have not answered questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Of course all members can raise matters; I am merely pointing out what is the correct procedure to do so. If the member would please contact me with all the details then I will attend to the issue as quickly as I can.
Wong Pansy: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Wong Pansy: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:632;Page:4124] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the subject of my written question to which I could not get an answer from either Minister. It is a sample from a postcard campaign directed to the Hon David Cunliffe Minister of Immigration conducted by the Massey University Students Association. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Wong Pansy: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Wong Pansy: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:632;Page:4124] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am seeking your help to resolve my problem of not being able to get my question for written answer No. 8465 answered by either the Minister of Immigration or the Minister for Tertiary Education. The question relates to a— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please write to me and I can address the issue. That applies to all members in the House. If members have difficulties with questions would they please write to me—that is the correct procedure—and I will deal with the issues as best I can.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4119] 
9.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: What reports if any has she received on fund-raising in the disabilities sector? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 I have seen a report of a fund-raising scam that abuses the public’s trust and goodwill. It involves a Christchurch millionaire property developer who sells pens on the street under the guise of collecting for Wheelchair Tennis but who gives to that organisation only $5 of the $20 he charges. This person is none other than the three-time ACT candidate John Peters. 
Darien Fenton 
: What other details have emerged from that disability scam? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: By Mr Peters’ own admission he scams money off the unsuspecting public by sitting in a way designed to make people believe he is a paraplegic. He agrees that people might be a bit misled by this. It seems as far as the ACT party is concerned that it is OK to bash beneficiaries but that millionaires ripping off the public is quite acceptable.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4111] 
3.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received supportive of the Government’s stated aim of increasing front-line police by 1000 over the next 3 years? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I have seen a number of reports. Two will be of particular interest to members. One consists of enthusiastic comments about the allocation of six new police officers for Hawke’s Bay which will make life more difficult for the “few rat-bags who do not respect the law”. The second report concerns the organiser of a petition to support the police recruitment campaign. The first report is from Craig Foss; the second Judith Collins. I would like to thank both those National MPs for supporting the Government’s campaign to put 1000 more police on the street. I thank those members very much for their kind promotion. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What other recent reports has the Minister seen concerning the New Zealand Police? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen a whole series of reports attacking the police in the last few months. The police have been attacked for sending specialist staff on customer service courses so that they can provide better service to the public. The police have been attacked for using security guards to maintain watch outside police cells thereby releasing front-line police to other duties. They have been accused of failing in their 3-year police recruitment campaign just 13 days after it started. And the police commissioner has been virtually accused of lying. I think it is totally inappropriate for a leadership hopeful like Simon Power to use the New Zealand Police as a stepping stone for his own ambitions. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has she seen any other reports concerning rural policing in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I have. I have seen a report that attacks the police and the good people of Wairoa. Chester Borrows MP said that the four British police who chose to go to Wairoa must have been given “a bloody good brochure”. I am forwarding his comments to the  
Wairoa Star 
 and also to the local mayor because I think they would be very interested in what the National Party really thinks about rural towns in New Zealand. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister confirm to the House that the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour Government and New Zealand First that provides for the extra 1000 sworn front-line police staff also includes “a target of achieving ratios comparable with those in Australia by 2010” which will give a further increase to policing numbers under this Government? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can confirm that agreement and I can also acknowledge the member’s party for the work it has put into ensuring we are able to recruit 1000 extra police over the next three Budgets unlike the snivelling whingeing members opposite with the exception of Judith Collins and Craig Foss who want it to fail.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Australia—Australian Political Exchange 2006 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Australia—Australian Political Exchange 2006 
[Volume:632;Page:4107] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Australian Political Exchange 2006 led by Trish Draper MP Federal member for Makin South Australia are present in the gallery. I am sure the House will welcome them.
Visitors — Australia—Australian Political Exchange 2006 
Visitors — Australia—Australian Political Exchange 2006 
[Volume:632;Page:4107] 
Tuesday 18 July 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Australian Political Exchange 2006 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Australian Political Exchange 2006 led by Trish Draper MP Federal member for Makin South Australia are present in the gallery. I am sure the House will welcome them.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4313] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Labour be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Vote Labour agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4311] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Local Government be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Vote Local Government agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4306] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Health be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 8 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Vote Health agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4294] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote State-Owned Enterprises be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Vote State-Owned Enterprises agreed to.
Swain Paul: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Swain Paul: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4290] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in this debate. I thought we might have some discussion on the State-owned enterprises issue because it is one of the matters that are the subject of this estimates debate. 
I begin by saying that one of the issues of course when we are talking about the finance area is that there are some very clear policy differences between the National Party and the Labour Party. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but this is not the actual State-owned enterprises debate. That is the next one. 
Vote agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Standing Orders—Sessional 
Cullen Michael: Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:632;Page:4287] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 25(1) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 this House adds the following premises to the parliamentary precincts: 
the parts of Bowen House situated at the corner of Lambton Quay and Bowen Street Wellington and described as “additional premises” in the letter dated 24 December 2004 varying the Deed of Lease dated 14 December 2001 between Capital Properties (Kingsway) Limited and the Parliamentary Corporation; and 
the area of the first floor of Bowen House contained in Certificate of Title 37A/166 subject to a Deed of Extension and Variation of Lease signed and accepted on 30 November 1999 between Capital Properties (Kingsway) Limited and Her Majesty the Queen acting by and through the Secretary for Internal Affairs; and 
the premises known as “the House of Representatives ex-Debating Chamber” situated at levels sub-basement and sub-sub-basement at No 3 The Terrace Wellington on land contained in Certificate of Title WN41C/805 subject to a Memorandum of Lease B.263261.1 (Wellington Registry) dated 29 October 2004 between AMP NZ Office 1 The Terrace Limited and the Parliamentary Corporation.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4284] 
11.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: Was he satisfied with the response of regional civil defence and emergency management personnel in the Wairarapa and Wanganui regions in the last 2 weeks; if so why? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I am very satisfied with the response of the local civil defence personnel during the periods of adverse weather throughout New Zealand. Coordination activities undertaken by civil defence and emergency management personnel in the Wairarapa and Wanganui regions were swift and effective. I congratulate all personnel on their efforts in response to the various emergencies. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Can the Minister advise on any specific action as a result of effective agency engagement between the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management and other key agencies in the areas during the response phase of those emergencies; if so what? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes I can. On Sunday 9 July a three-span bridge was knocked out at Mangamahu cutting the area off. On Wednesday 12 July I contacted Transit which said it had a bridge and if requested was willing to build it but it had no funding to do so. The office of the Minister of Transport suggested that I contact Land Transport New Zealand and within hours of my having done so Land Transport had agreed to fund the Bailey bridge in its erection. We had a bridge engineers and funding—all to the delight of the local mayor Michael Laws. I thank the good Minister of Transport Annette King for responding to my request and I thank local government staff for their hard work during that time. This response shows how effective local decision-making with national support can be. 
John Hayes 
: I seek leave to table a request from the Carterton District Council that appeared in today’s edition of the  
Wairarapa News 
 which asks the Government for $200000 for flood repair to damaged roads. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4280] 
9.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What work is being done to improve the oral health of New Zealanders? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: In addition to the $40 million child and adolescent oral health package announced in the Budget the Government will be undertaking the largest oral health survey in New Zealand’s history. The survey will involve over 7000 participants and has been welcomed by the New Zealand Dental Association. 
Sue Moroney 
: What reports has the Minister received on factors contributing to a decline in the oral health status of New Zealanders? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I have seen reports that a lack of dental therapists has resulted in more children developing cavities. Maori Pacific and rural children have been the hardest hit. Amazingly the lack of dental therapists is a direct result of the National-led Government’s decision to completely stop training new therapists. The Labour-led Government has restarted the training programme and the first new graduates entered the profession late last year. 
Judy Turner 
: When will the Minister step in with some money so that the Catholic Sisters of Compassion no longer have to fund a Saturday dental clinic for children in Lower Hutt who currently cannot access services in a timely way when needed? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The Government has already announced expenditure of $100 million over the next 5 years for dental services. It is the first time for a long long time that we have seen a real commitment from a Government to oral health services in this country.