edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Points of Order — Chamber Audio and Third Readings—Speaker’s Rulings 
Points of Order — Chamber Audio and Third Readings—Speaker’s Rulings 
[Volume:654;Page:2998] 
Points of Order 
Chamber Audio and Third Readings—Speaker’s Rulings 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It concerns two unrelated matters. The first is that some weeks ago I raised by way of a point of order concerns about the amplification system in the Chamber. You undertook to obtain a report and presumably to advise the House in due course. To my knowledge that advice has not yet been forthcoming. The second matter was that last Thursday during the course of the third reading debate on a bill whose name temporarily escapes me I raised a point of order regarding the scope of third reading debates with one of your Assistant Speakers. The Assistant Speaker undertook to obtain a ruling and to come back to the House on that matter. I just wonder whether you could update me on progress in respect of both of those issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. On the first issue I say that I have not yet satisfied myself in following up on that inquiry. The matter has been investigated and I have a report on it. I am following up on the matter and I will come back to the honourable member once I have that information. With respect to the second matter I am aware of that situation having arisen and I will follow it up for the honourable member.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 6 to Minister 5 May 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 6 to Minister 5 May 
[Volume:654;Page:2998] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 6 to Minister 5 May 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Under Standing Order 349 I seek leave to make a correction to an answer I gave to question No. 6 on Tuesday 5 May. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In researching the response to an oral question today I discovered that I had inadvertently used a wrong figure on Tuesday in question time in response to supplementary questioning referring to the Waterview Connection business case. The correct figure for the project financing costs is $550 million not the $200 million figure I used on Tuesday. This correction does not change the total cost—as identified in the business case and referred to in Parliament—of $2.77 billion. I apologise to the House for the error.
Speaker’s Rulings — Tabling of Documents—Ministers Seeking Leave 
Speaker’s Rulings — Tabling of Documents—Ministers Seeking Leave 
[Volume:654;Page:2997] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Tabling of Documents—Ministers Seeking Leave 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yesterday a point of order was raised about Ministers tabling papers in the House. Papers may be presented to the House or tabled in the House by leave. Presentation and tabling by leave are two distinct procedures. 
The presentation of a paper to the House takes place off the floor of the House. Standing Order 362 allows the Speaker and Ministers to present a paper by delivering it to the Clerk on any working day but prior to 1 p.m. on a sitting day. A Minister may not present a paper under Standing Order 362 while the House is sitting. 
During the course of a sitting any member including a Minister may seek leave to table a document. Only the Speaker under Standing Order 362(1) and a Minister who is presenting papers relating to the Budget following the delivery of the Budget or who has introduced an Appropriation Bill under Standing Order 366 may present a paper in the House without leave. Standing Order 368 in allowing a document to be tabled by leave of the House makes no distinction between members and Ministers. Both must seek leave to do so. However unlike members this is not the only option available to Ministers. A Minister may also under Standing Order 362 present a paper off the floor of the House by delivering it to the Clerk. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thank you for your considered ruling. It is clearly an area where there has been some greyness in the past and this ruling has clarified it.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:654;Page:2997] 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to bills currently on the Order Paper. However it is anticipated that on Wednesday urgency will be accorded to the introduction and passing of bills pertaining and relating to Auckland governance and some other first readings. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Given that the two bills in question concerning Auckland governance will be introduced under urgency I wonder whether the Leader of the House could undertake to make those bills available to the Opposition by Monday at the latest as there will not be the normal 3-day consideration. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 As soon as those bills are available we will make a decision about their release. The member will be aware that when bills are introduced under urgency they are not tabled prior to that time. However in order to ensure that there is as much good process as possible certainly the bill that is to go through all stages will be available to parties prior to the urgency motion.
Hughes Darren: Business of the House 
Hughes Darren: Business of the House 
[Volume:654;Page:2997] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Given that the two bills in question concerning Auckland governance will be introduced under urgency I wonder whether the Leader of the House could undertake to make those bills available to the Opposition by Monday at the latest as there will not be the normal 3-day consideration.
Cunliffe David: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20212] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to open this section of the debate in the Committee stage of the Appropriations (2011/12 Estimates) Bill. 
It is very important at this juncture that this Committee and our country understand the crossroads presented to us by the estimates that are in this debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. There may be a misunderstanding. The question is Vote Audit. This is Vote Audit. Is the member speaking to Vote Audit? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No. 
Vote agreed to.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20207] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 261 in the name of the Hon Heather Roy be agreed to.
Faafoi Kris: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Faafoi Kris: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20210] 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Taloha ni Mr Chair. I thank the Minister in the chair the Hon Peter Dunne very much for being so frank about the motivation behind this part. I do not want to take up a hell of a lot of time in terms of speaking to Part 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill but for those who are tuning in—and I think there actually will be quite a few people interested in this bill given the relevance of the announcement made yesterday—there are some clarifications we want to seek. 
While they are being sought we thought it might be useful just to reinforce what my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has said and just to lay out exactly what Part 2 pertains to. It amends the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005 in just two technical clauses. Clause 13 repeals the definition of “substance” in section 31 of the 2005 Act which claims that a substance “(a) means any mixture preparation or article that is manufactured for the primary purpose of being administered ingested inhaled or injected in order to induce a psychoactive response; but (b) does not include any … (v) hazardous substance (as defined in section 2(1) of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996):”. Referring to that Act under section 2(1) a hazardous substance means “unless expressly provided otherwise by regulations any substance—(a) with 1 or more of the following intrinsic properties: (i) explosiveness: (ii) flammability: (iii) a capacity to oxidise: (iv) corrosiveness: (v) toxicity (including chronic toxicity): (vi) ecotoxicity”. I am no scientist as I have pointed out before in the debate on the Royal Society of New Zealand but I know that that is definitely one of the clauses in the Act. 
I guess when we are talking about substances that have those properties and we want to correct “a cock-up”—a direct quote from the Minister— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: A very technical term! 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: It is a very technical term and maybe we will come back to it tomorrow when we debate the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill again. But in looking at Part 2 and at the Minister correcting this legislation I guess that when we are dealing with those properties this is a positive move—which we will support as we are supporting this bill in its entirety and the Supplementary Order Paper the Minister has put forward.
Clendon David: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Clendon David: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20208] 
DAVID CLENDON (Deputy Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to change the Green Party vote in respect of Mr Lees-Galloway’s amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 260 to nine votes in favour and the Hon Chris Carter’s vote to one vote in favour. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The corrected vote on Iain Lees-Galloway’s amendment is Ayes 53 and Noes 66. The amendment is not agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20214] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Tourism be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Vote Tourism agreed to.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20208] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4; Independent: Carter C. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20207] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 4 
ACT New Zealand 4. 
Noes 115 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 260 in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway be agreed to.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20208] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 43 Noes 76. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 258 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne be agreed to.
Goodhew Jo: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20205] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bennett David: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bennett David: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20207] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:674;Page:20178] 
10. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to ensure New Zealand better cares for and protects our most vulnerable children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 We have released a green paper on vulnerable children. Too many of our children are being hurt abused and neglected but I believe we can change this. Some of the complex issues the paper raises include whether vulnerable children should be prioritised for services over others how the Government can encourage communities to take more responsibility for the well-being of their children and how much monitoring of vulnerable children there should be amongst Government and non-governmental organisations. Submissions on the green paper are now open and I certainly encourage people to get involved. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What response has she received on the release of the  
Green Paper for Vulnerable Children 
? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There has been a lot of response to the  
Green Paper for Vulnerable Children 
 and it has come in a number of ways and from a number of sources including via Facebook and the green paper’s website. I have also seen reports welcoming the green paper from places like Plunket the New Zealand Medical Association Save the Children Barnardos the Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse Trust the New Zealand Educational Institute the National Council of Women Te Kahui Mana Ririki and the Children’s Commissioner. It seems that the paper has certainly been well received and I look forward to receiving submissions on it. 
Hon Annette King 
: In light of her comment that “Too many children are being hurt abused neglected and badly let down but we can change this and now is the time to act.” what is her definition of “now”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It would be fair to say that in the last 2½ years I have been working continuously on changes both within Child Youth and Family and across government about what we can do for our vulnerable children—for example the Never Ever Shake a Baby campaign and having Child Youth and Family social workers in hospitals. We have put more into teen parents than any other Government has previously in terms of supported housing. We have also done more to support teen fathers and we have introduced Home for Life which has made a big difference in the protection of and permanency for those children. There was $44 million more in the last Budget for kids in care to make sure that we get the right sorts of services from those who care for them. So a lot has been done but there is a lot more to do as I am sure the member would agree.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:674;Page:20176] 
8. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What measures has the Government taken to control new psychoactive substances? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Government has decided to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act to enable the issue of temporary class drug notices for currently unregulated substances of concern. This new mechanism will place a temporary ban on such substances for up to 12 months while their risk is assessed and will enable us to deal with synthetic cannabinoids like Kronic. I expect that once this amendment is passed temporary class drug notices for these substances will be gazetted and the substances will be off the shelves a week later. 
Jonathan Young 
: What does he say to the industry claims that it will devise new products to get around the law? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: We will certainly be monitoring the industry’s activities very closely but I say to the industry that the moment it attempts to bring a new product on to the market we will invoke the powers of this legislation gazette the product and have it off the shelves within 7 days. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Does he still claim that taking action on drugs such as P and Kronic is a priority for his Government given that the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill has been buried on the Order Paper since November last year? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Absolutely. In fact we have been making sure that the measures the bill contains when put in place will work effectively. If the member looks at what has happened overseas he will see a number of jurisdictions that have imposed short-term bans that have not worked. We have done the job comprehensively and properly. These restrictions will work.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:674;Page:20174] 
6. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What reports has he received on the interest in the Government’s Financial Assistance Package from owners of leaky homes? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Since the financial assistance package became law just last Friday the Department of Building and Housing has recorded a high level of inquiries from owners of leaky homes who are interested in taking up the package. Not only have we had a considerable number of inquiries from people who already have existing claims but also we received 43 calls on Friday from brand new claimants. The department’s leaky home package website www.leakyhomes.govt.nz has so far had a total of 1210 hits resulting in the download of 892 financial assistance information packs. Just yesterday the website received 422 hits and 345 financial assistance packs were downloaded. This is a positive sign that the Government’s package is being viewed by the public in a very positive way. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What benefits will the financial assistance package provide to the owners of leaky homes? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: First the package will suit both apartment owners and homeowners who want to avoid lengthy and costly legal battles in the courts and want to move on with their lives. Second it will help owners of leaky homes get their homes fixed a lot faster. The financial assistance package is but one more option for owners of leaky homes. It will be in addition to the current disputes process. Homeowners who choose to take the financial assistance package will still have the right to pursue other liable parties such as builders developers and the manufacturers of defective products. This package sees a contribution of 25 percent from the Government and 25 percent from the local authority with the remaining 50 percent being funded by the homeowner.
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20212] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We now move to the Appropriation (2011/12 Estimates) Bill. The Standing Orders provide for 8 hours of debate on the estimates. 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 the vote stand part. Should it be the wish of the Committee a question may be proposed on two or more related votes for the purpose of debating them together. At the conclusion of the 8 hours of debate any remaining votes and the remaining provisions of the bill will be put as one question. The Government indicates which votes are available for debate. I understand all votes are available and will be called in order of seniority of Ministers commencing with the Speaker’s votes. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the votes is available on the Table.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:674;Page:20170] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the member further as long as he does not make any comment that is derogatory of any other member under a point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In light of your decision and the Prime Minister’s decision not to answer the question we will not proceed with it. 
Question withdrawn.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:674;Page:20170] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not tolerate that kind of language being used for a point of order. The member knows that a few years ago questions that sought opinions could not even be asked in this House. In the overall hierarchy of seriousness of questions the member has been around long enough to know that when opinions are being sought the Speaker cannot even determine whether an answer is addressing the question. And to argue that when opinions are sought questions cannot be transferred is I believe not consistent at all with the Standing Orders of this House. 
As I said if a question is seeking information where only one Minister or the Prime Minister is the only person who has that information then it would be impeding the processes of this House were such a question to be transferred. But where opinions are sought —forgive me; the member is certainly entitled to disagree with me I have no problem with that—my ruling on this matter is that that is not the kind of question that cannot be transferred.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:674;Page:20170] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am going to respectfully disagree with your views. My view is that the Prime Minister is accountable in this House for opinions he has expressed. He is the only person who can be accountable for opinions he has expressed. I accept that the question is not asking for information; it is effectively asking him whether he is satisfied with his Government’s delivery on his priorities. My view is that no other Minister can answer those questions. It removes accountability in this House if the Prime Minister is allowed to duck those questions.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:674;Page:20169] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member was doing fine until that point. I think I have heard sufficient on the point of order. He cannot make allegations about whether a Minister wanted to answer questions. The point the member raises is a perfectly legitimate point of order but my ruling on the matter though would be this. The Government is perfectly entitled to transfer questions from one Minister to another or from the Prime Minister to another Minister except were the transfer to be anathema to the obtaining of information. If the Minister or Prime Minister being questioned could be the only person who had particular information and the question was transferred to make it not possible to obtain that information then I would have real concerns. In fact I suggest we would start debating and negotiating whether the question could be transferred. 
But where an opinion is being sought about the Government’s position on things that is not in my view the same as where information—real information about Government policy or what has happened or where money is being spent—is being sought and only one Minister can have that knowledge; it would be wrong for that question to be transferred. But where an opinion is being sought I do not see that it is contrary to the bracket of Speakers’ rulings that the member mentions if the question is directed to another Minister and to make sense of the question it asks whether that Minister is satisfied with the most recent statistics on child health. 
Were the question not to have been changed textually it would have left the question meaningless. I do not believe that this particular question is the kind of question that makes it wrong for it to be transferred or one where the Prime Minister could be the only person who had serious information that was important to this House.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:674;Page:20169] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to question No. 3 which was originally addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer you in particular to the interplay between Speakers’ rulings 145/1 145/2 and 145/4 at least. This question was originally addressed to the Prime Minister and asked about the Prime Minister’s views and effectively whether he was satisfied with some statistics that related to a view he had expressed. 
I am not challenging the ability—and it has been well established under Speaker’s ruling 145/1—for a question to be transferred but when that happens there is still a requirement under Speaker’s ruling 145/4 that there is ministerial responsibility for the question as it is changed. Under Speaker’s ruling 145/2 there is a right to make textual changes provided they are entirely consequential. 
This question was addressed to the Prime Minister and asked about his view. It has been transferred to the Minister for Social Development and Employment and now asks about her view. My submission to you is that the second change was not one that was necessary in the context of the transfer. In fact it was not the area on which an opinion was sought. Frankly we are not so interested in the view of that Minister on this; we are interested in and asked the question about the Prime Minister’s view on his statement and what has happened since that time. 
The problem with the transfer would be of course that the Minister for Social Development and Employment does not have ministerial responsibility for the Prime Minister’s views; she has responsibility for her own views. My submission to you is that the transfer of this question has resulted in the so-called consequential textual changes changing the meaning of the question to such an extent. Obviously the Prime Minister did not want to answer it but my view is that when it is in that form—
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Correction—Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill 
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Correction—Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill 
[Volume:674;Page:20164] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On 14 July when the House was considering the Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill the result of the vote on the question that the bill be read a second time was incorrectly announced as Ayes 67 Noes 53. The correct result is Ayes 65 Noes 53.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:674;Page:20180] 
12. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received regarding improved services for cancer patients in Hamilton? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
on behalf of the Minister of Health: I am advised that more cancer patients receiving treatment at Waikato Hospital will now be able to stay free of charge in Hamilton during their care. Patients who live more than 30 kilometres away from the city can now stay during the week at the new Lions Lodge which is run by the Waikato Bay of Plenty division of the Cancer Society. Until now they have had to live more than 100 kilometres away and patients who live closer to Hamilton can stay there if there are vacancies along with a family support member. In a New Zealand first the Waikato District Health Board the Bay of Plenty District Health Board and the Lakes District Health Board are together putting more than $900000 into the lodge which will result in improved access and make a big difference to around 50 extra families a year. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What other cancer services have been improved for patients in Hamilton? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: A new centre providing PET and CT scans in Hamilton means that patients from New Plymouth through to the Waikato will no longer have to travel to Wellington or even Australia for these important tests. These scans are a valuable tool in diagnosing and monitoring the progression of cancer and allow clinicians to plan and adjust to a patient’s treatment accordingly at earlier stages of the disease. The Government is providing an extra million dollars every year for district health boards to purchase more PET scans and this is supporting at least 550 additional patients each year.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Norway—Bombing and Mass Shooting 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Norway—Bombing and Mass Shooting 
[Volume:674;Page:20162] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 In a world that has perhaps seen just about everything there is an inevitable tendency to view tragedies as they emerge as being part and parcel of the world we live in today. We are all afflicted by that awful complacency. But this particular tragedy—the wholesale slaughter of vibrant innocent fresh-faced young people—stands out above many and cries out for a response. 
It is easy to say that this was the act of a lone crazed gunman in pursuit of a particular ideological dream. That may be so but the reality is deeper. The events that took place that particular day in and around Oslo are so unspeakably rare and unusual as to evoke within us all a sense of asking whether it could happen here. Our initial response is to say: “Of course not. We are a benign and tolerant society. We do not have those sorts of divisions.” yet the same thing could be said and was being said about Norway. So while we mourn the deaths of those who were so callously slaughtered and while we extend our sympathy to their country to their political colleagues and to their families on their inordinate loss and wonder how on earth that gulf in their lives will be filled in the short term we need to reflect upon the implications for so-called good and decent societies like ours and Norway’s around the world. 
Intolerance and prejudice wherever they fester have to be looked on as totally unacceptable and we have to redouble our efforts in the wake of this sort of tragedy to ensure that those elements do not come to prominence in our society and in kindred societies elsewhere. Just as the shock and the horror of what happened in Norway was because no one could have possibly contemplated such events occurring in that country we must be mindful lest a similar form of understandable complacency lead to our having similar misgivings in the future when events occur much closer to home. 
This is a wake-up call for all. It is not a call for witch-hunts or a call for meeting intolerance with more intolerance but it is a very strong call to all of us to do what we can to stamp out the root causes of intolerance and prejudice and of anger and hatred in our society. I believe that the greatest tribute we could pay those who fell so wantonly in Norway is to make that commitment: to ensure that their lives were not in vain and that their memories are spurs to us all in the free and democratic world to be tolerant to be just to be free and to be open in the future. That is what they thought they were about on that particular afternoon. Their lesson to all of us should not be in vain. Our sympathy for their country and their families is immense and profound.
Goff Phil: Motions — Norway—Bombing and Mass Shooting 
Goff Phil: Motions — Norway—Bombing and Mass Shooting 
[Volume:674;Page:20158] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 On behalf of the parliamentary Labour Party I support that resolution. Today as New Zealand parliamentarians we express our grief and our sympathy for the people and Government of Norway for the tragedy that they have suffered. We grieve for the victims and for their families. They were so young. Looking at their faces in the newspaper yesterday we saw that they were full of enthusiasm full of life and looking forward to the contribution that they might make to their country and their community. But that was stolen from them. 
Like New Zealand Norway is a small stable and peaceful country. This allows us perhaps to better understand the scale and the shock of the tragedy that has befallen that country with the loss of 77 of its citizens. Norway—again like New Zealand—is a largely tolerant multicultural country where people live alongside each other and get on with each other. We can see that from the diversity of the young people who were gathered on Utøya Island for the Norwegian Labour Party youth conference. 
We share with the Norwegians their abhorrence that someone could be so motivated by hatred of others on the basis of their ethnicity or their religion that they could commit an atrocity of this nature. At the funeral of the young woman who was the first to be buried Christians and Muslims walked side by side and embraced each other as an explicit and moving rejection of what had motivated the killer. As Eskil Pedersen the leader of the youth wing of the Norwegian Labour Party said: “The gunman took from his victims their lives. But he can’t take away what they believed in: tolerance and anti-racism.” 
Norway is a decent country. It is committed to a peaceful and more just world. It hosted peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It tried desperately to bring together the warring parties in Sri Lanka. The Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Støre and I worked closely together to pass the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Oslo. It makes it even more of a tragedy that something of this nature could have afflicted a country so committed to peace. 
We stand in solidarity alongside Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg when he says: “We’re a small country but a very proud country. No one can bomb us to be quiet. No one can shoot us to be quiet. No one can ever scare us from being Norway.” Today as a fraternal party of the Norwegian Labour Party we offer it our support and our sorrow at the loss of so many of its young people. We offer to the people and the Government of Norway our support our condolences and our sympathy.
Key John: Motions — Norway—Bombing and Mass Shooting 
Key John: Motions — Norway—Bombing and Mass Shooting 
[Volume:674;Page:20157] 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the two tragic attacks in Norway that claimed the lives of 77 people. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I move  
That the House express its sympathy and condolences to the people of Norway following the recent attacks that claimed the lives of 77 people 
. On 22 July 2011 the people of Norway witnessed two deeply shocking events. The bombings in central Oslo and the shootings on Utøya Island left many innocent civilians killed and injured. They were an appalling attack against Norway’s democratic open and trusting society. Many of the victims were young people attending a summer camp. Tragically a New Zealand - born teenager was amongst those killed. 
The New Zealand Government extends its heartfelt condolences and thoughts to the people of Norway as they grieve. New Zealand strongly values the warm relationship and shared values between our two countries. We are thinking of the families and friends who lost loved ones in this tragedy and we hope those who were injured in the attacks recover quickly. I know that the people of New Zealand have shared in the horror of others around the world at hearing the news of this terrible event. Members of this House have been personally affected and I take this opportunity to extend my sympathies to them today. 
The twin attacks in Norway resonate with New Zealanders not just because a New Zealander was sadly amongst the victims who were killed but because New Zealand like Norway is a peaceful country of about 4.5 million people. It is hard to imagine events such as this occurring on our own shores. To acknowledge how deeply shocking these events have been for the people of Norway we stand alongside them at this most difficult time. We know that the people of Norway are strong and courageous and that they will get through this. As Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg has said they will not be intimidated by these events. Norway will stand firm in defending itself as an open tolerant and inclusive society. This is an absolute tragedy. Our thoughts and heartfelt sympathy are with the people of Norway as they mourn the loss of so many lives.
Smith Lockwood: Obituaries — Hon Tini Whetu Marama Tirikatene-Sullivan ONZ 
Smith Lockwood: Obituaries — Hon Tini Whetu Marama Tirikatene-Sullivan ONZ 
[Volume:674;Page:20157] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 20 July 2011 of the Hon Tini Whetu Marama Tirikatene-Sullivan ONZ who represented the electorate of Southern Maori from 1967 to 1996. She was Minister of Tourism from 1972 to 1975 Associate Minister of Social Welfare from 1972 to 1974 and Minister for the Environment from 1974 to 1975. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for her memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Hutchison Paul: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20240] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It is an absolute pleasure to take a call in this estimates debate regarding Vote Health. What a shame it is that Grant Robertson has turned into a shroud waver when in these estimates we signalled that $585 million extra will be put into health— 
Grant Robertson 
: No there weren’t. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
:—absolutely; $585 million extra will be available for health. This is a great credit to the Minister of Health Tony Ryall who since 2008 has managed to get $1.2 billion extra put into health. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister tells me it is $1.5 billion. That is an absolute indication of how the National Government is prioritising health as being very important for New Zealanders and is delivering. What we remember over the last 9 years was a total lack of productivity in health but a total increase in bureaucracy. That is what happened under Labour. Now we are starting to get results. 
It was very rich to hear Grant Robertson talk about health prevention because under this Government there have been some outstanding achievements. One just has to go to the immunisation rate. In 2007 only 75 percent of 2-year-olds were fully immunised. Now the figure is 90 percent. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill with amendment and progress on the Appropriation (2011/12 Estimates) Bill. 
Report adopted.
Delahunty Catherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Delahunty Catherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:674;Page:20170] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called Catherine Delahunty. I just ask some of the front-bench members to show some courtesy to a member sitting at the back of the House. It is totally unreasonable to carry on those interjections.
Boscawen John: Motions — Norway—Bombing and Mass Shooting 
Boscawen John: Motions — Norway—Bombing and Mass Shooting 
[Volume:674;Page:20160] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It was with disbelief and horror that New Zealand and the world learnt the devastating news of the bombing in downtown Oslo and the subsequent shootings on the island retreat of Utøya which claimed 77 lives. I along with my colleagues in the ACT Party and this House express our deepest sympathies to the people of Norway which with a population of 4.5 million is not much bigger than New Zealand. More specifically we send our thoughts and prayers to the families and friends of the 77 victims whose lives were cut so tragically short that day. We know that words will not ease the sorrow but we hope that you will find some small comfort in the knowledge that we here in New Zealand stand beside you in this time of tragedy. 
In the aftermath of this horrific event the people of Norway which is home to the Nobel Peace Prize and known for its peacefulness and liberalism have shown the world how to face adversity with courage. Norway’s Prime Minister addressed his country in the aftermath of this attack and was not intimidated. He has vowed that he and his countrymen will not bow to the will of a madman that his country will fight back with more democracy and that 22 July will be a very strong symbol of the Norwegian people’s wish to be united in the fight against violence and a symbol of how the nation can answer with love. 
It is a sad reality that tragedies such as this can strike even the most peaceful of societies. But what we can all learn from Norway is that the best way to honour the lives of those who die at the hands of such violent and repulsive people is to fight for and preserve the greatest aspects of humanity: peace tolerance and democracy. Thank you.
Voting — Correction—Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill 
Voting — Correction—Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill 
[Volume:674;Page:20164] 
Voting 
Correction—Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On 14 July when the House was considering the Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill the result of the vote on the question that the bill be read a second time was incorrectly announced as Ayes 67 Noes 53. The correct result is Ayes 65 Noes 53.
Street Maryan: Motions — Norway—Bombing and Mass Shooting 
Street Maryan: Motions — Norway—Bombing and Mass Shooting 
[Volume:674;Page:20164] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 Across this Parliament we share in Norway’s mourning today. Right now in Norway at 4.30 a.m. parents will be sitting by hospital beds. As the Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said: “Many are weeping. Hearts are bleeding.” 
Norway is famous for its peacemaking and its peacekeeping role around the world. It is known as a stable and compassionate society whose leadership on peace and disarmament is recognised and respected the world over. We are very alike in our size our geography and more important our values. I remember being welcomed to the Norwegian Parliament during the Speaker’s tour in 2007 with colleagues from a range of parties across this House. The overwhelming impression—again across a range of parties—was one of mutual respect. We had and have a lot in common. That such a destructive event should happen in Norway is almost beyond comprehension but comprehend it we must. 
In standing with the Government and the people of Norway at this time we pay a tribute to the responses of the leaders who are calling not for revenge or hatred but for more democracy more humanity and more compassion but not with naivety. An attempt to wipe out a generation of political leaders is profoundly shocking. We in the New Zealand Labour Party feel it deeply because of our close ties with the Norwegian Labour Party and its youth wing. Our MPs know their MPs; our youth leaders know their youth leaders. But this sentiment is shared across every political party in this House. As Ella Hardy president of Young Labour New Zealand said: “Through the last week we have shared our message of solidarity and empathy with our brothers and sisters in Norway. They died for their belief in social justice anti-racism and tolerance. They died trying to make the world a better place. Let racist ignorance be ended.” 
Dignity and democratic values have emerged through the intense grief of the Norwegian people but special words are needed for the young. Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said them: “I want to say this to all the young people here. The massacre on Utøya was an attack against young people’s dream of being able to help to make the world a better place. Your dreams have been brutally crushed. But your dreams can be fulfilled. … I have a simple request to make of you. Get involved. Care. Join an organisation. Take part in debates. Use your vote. Free elections are the jewel in the crown of democracy. By taking part you are saying a resounding yes to democracy.” That courage and that conviction can never be defeated. 
Motion agreed to.
Visitors — Canada—2011 Prime Minister’s Fellow Minister of Citizenship Immigration and Multiculturalism House of Commons 
Visitors — Canada—2011 Prime Minister’s Fellow Minister of Citizenship Immigration and Multiculturalism House of Commons 
[Volume:674;Page:20157] 
Visitors 
Canada—2011 Prime Minister’s Fellow Minister of Citizenship Immigration and Multiculturalism House of Commons 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I now have much pleasure in informing the House that the 2011 Prime Minister’s Fellow from Canada the Hon Jason Kenney Minister of Citizenship Immigration and Multiculturalism from the House of Commons of Canada is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed.
Members Sworn 
Members Sworn 
[Volume:674;Page:20157] 
Members Sworn 
Hone Harawira was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took his seat in the House.
Smith Lockwood: Resignations — Hon John Carter Northland 
Smith Lockwood: Resignations — Hon John Carter Northland 
[Volume:674;Page:20157] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon John McGregor Carter National resigning his seat in the House with effect at midnight on Sunday 17 July 2011.
Resignations — Hon John Carter Northland 
Resignations — Hon John Carter Northland 
[Volume:674;Page:20157] 
Tuesday 2 August 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Karakia 
. 
Resignations 
Hon John Carter Northland 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon John McGregor Carter National resigning his seat in the House with effect at midnight on Sunday 17 July 2011.