edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:728] 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill and the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Amendment Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2; any maiden statements to be made at times determined by the Business Committee; and a motion to adjourn the House and adopt the sitting dates for 2009 
. I have moved this motion in accordance with the requirements of the Standing Orders. I wish further to signal to the House that although it is the Government’s intention to take those first two bills through all stages it is not our intention to do anything other than make progress and as much progress as possible on Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2. The House will of course consider the sitting times for next year in the adjournment motion later in the week. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This of course is not a debatable motion and I am certainly not trying to debate it but there is a requirement for the Minister to give a reason. He did not actually give a reason. He stated that this was in accordance with the Standing Orders and then outlined very helpfully I think to the House the nature of the business that is to be considered. But he does have to give a reason for urgency. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can give as much or as little reason as he chooses to give. I believe that his explanation of the issues behind urgency was quite helpful to the House. In future the Minister may choose to give more reason than he did but that is a matter for his judgment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 It seems to me that he gave a “how” not a “why” if I can put it that way. He explained to us how things are going to happen and it was very helpful. I thank him very much for that—I appreciated it. But he has to give a reason. The reason does not have to be a big one. It can be that this motion is required to meet the Government’s requirements for legislation to be passed before Christmas or before the House rises for the Christmas adjournment—whatever it may be. But it is actually a reason a “why” that has to be given not a “how”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will just deal with this issue. As I understand the Standing Orders if the Opposition feels an inadequate reason has been given the Opposition may not support the motion and that is the remedy it has of course. But if the Minister is happy with the explanation he has given the question is that the motion be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 5 
Maori Party 5. 
Motion agreed to.
Wong Pansy: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Wong Pansy: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:787] 
Hon PANSY WONG (Associate Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 We have not heard any new arguments from the Labour Opposition against the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill. Even the Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons has run out of new arguments: she extended the debate into the so-called bigger picture. 
I want to emphasise once again that biofuel according to even one of the Labour Party members is actually on sale. It was available before the mandatory requirement was introduced by the passing of the biofuel legislation in the last parliamentary term. Biofuel is available and New Zealanders who choose to use biofuel can get it. It makes one wonder why the Labour Opposition is so hell-bent on making it a mandatory requirement. 
The Opposition is calling for a mandatory requirement in the face of two major deficiencies. The first is the lack of a standard for sustainable biofuels. My diligent hard-working honourable Minister Dr Nick Smith looks everywhere for one! For 9 years the previous Labour Government never made any effort to develop standards to ensure that the biofuel industry could grow. For 9 years it did nothing and now it is too late. The previous Labour Government was lazy and that explains why its members are on the Opposition benches. For 9 years it did nothing and the Labour Government in its dying days decided once again to try to mandate the bringing in of a compulsory requirement for biofuel to be sold. 
I am so glad to be able to take a call to support our sensible and credible Minister of Energy and Resources the Hon Gerry Brownlee. First of all he has repealed the compulsion part of the legislation. Even more sensibly he is creating a process to develop standards of sustainability so that the biofuel industry can prosper. More than that instead of compulsion the Minister is introducing a tax incentive. On this side of the House we believe that the growth of the biofuels industry is a desirable development and we want to see it happen. But we do not believe that compulsion is necessary because people already have access to and can choose to use biofuels. Tax incentives however make sure that the biofuel sector can grow. That is a good thing. I think the energy Minister the Hon Gerry Brownlee has made a fantastic compromise. He has put a lot of thought into it. 
We trust New Zealanders—our people are intelligent. When they are asked to make an informed choice they can make that judgment for themselves. There has never been any need for compulsion. When the last Labour Government tried to bring in compulsion it showed that it did not trust the people. What happened? On 8 November the people threw the Labour Government out. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Vote: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:776] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Guy Nathan: Sittings of the House 
Guy Nathan: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:651;Page:756] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek the leave for the House to rise a couple of minutes early this evening and to resume at 7.30 p.m. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise at this point for the dinner break and to resume at 7.30 p.m. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Tisch Lindsay: Maiden Statements 
Tisch Lindsay: Maiden Statements 
[Volume:651;Page:731] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Honourable members as was the practice during previous maiden statements I would ask that when each member has concluded we refrain from congratulatory responses so that all members have a fair chance to be able to make their maiden statements.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:729] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 5 
Maori Party 5. 
Motion agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: Urgency 
Smith Lockwood: Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:729] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will just deal with this issue. As I understand the Standing Orders if the Opposition feels an inadequate reason has been given the Opposition may not support the motion and that is the remedy it has of course. But if the Minister is happy with the explanation he has given the question is that the motion be agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:729] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 It seems to me that he gave a “how” not a “why” if I can put it that way. He explained to us how things are going to happen and it was very helpful. I thank him very much for that—I appreciated it. But he has to give a reason. The reason does not have to be a big one. It can be that this motion is required to meet the Government’s requirements for legislation to be passed before Christmas or before the House rises for the Christmas adjournment—whatever it may be. But it is actually a reason a “why” that has to be given not a “how”.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:728] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill and the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Amendment Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2; any maiden statements to be made at times determined by the Business Committee; and a motion to adjourn the House and adopt the sitting dates for 2009 
. I have moved this motion in accordance with the requirements of the Standing Orders. I wish further to signal to the House that although it is the Government’s intention to take those first two bills through all stages it is not our intention to do anything other than make progress and as much progress as possible on Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2. The House will of course consider the sitting times for next year in the adjournment motion later in the week.
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:651;Page:728] 
12.  
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Will the Government be moving to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I am delighted to inform the House that I have issued firm instructions to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to stop its plans to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs. This Government in stark contrast to the previous Government and the previous Minister of Energy David Parker rejects the idea that the Government knows best and must constantly meddle in the lives of New Zealanders. If people wish to buy incandescent light bulbs then this Government will not stop them from doing so. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Why is the Government not going to ban incandescent light bulbs? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are a number of excellent reasons why we have not moved to ban those light bulbs. The first is that this Government believes that choice not compulsion and the ability for individuals to make their own decisions about what sorts of lives they want to lead and what contribution they want to make to climate change is far better than nanny State telling them what to do. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Can the Minister confirm that it has never been a New Zealand Government policy to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs but rather to phase out some incandescent light bulbs as a range of identically performing high-efficiency alternatives come on to the market and that that policy has just been adopted across the European Union saving the equivalent of the entire electricity consumption of Romania; if he can confirm that would he care to tell the House why he is ramming this country into reverse gear? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Supplementary question. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh sorry! No. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister in reply. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have answered. 
Hon Members 
: We didn’t hear. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I gave the House an answer.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:651;Page:719] 
7.  
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What reports has he seen on the status of New Zealand’s housing stock? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The briefing to the incoming Minister from Housing New Zealand Corporation revealed that “It is estimated about $2 billion is required to address the deferred maintenance and upgrade and modernise State houses to an appropriate standard.” The books show that Labour was going into the depreciation fund to an unprecedented level over the past few years to acquire new State houses instead of keeping the current ones up to scratch. While Labour was bragging about new State houses it was actually strip mining the existing stock and leaving its tenants in squalor. 
Jonathan Young 
: What is the Minister going to do about the legacy he has been left? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Two billion dollars of deferred maintenance and squalor is clearly a huge challenge. We will be taking a balanced but urgent approach to upgrading existing stock. Members will see some increases in the number of State houses and they will certainly see better management of the State house sector going forward. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Does the Minister’s latest announcement that only South Auckland will see additions made to Housing New Zealand Corporation stock mean that other areas of New Zealand will miss out or even have a reduced number of houses built and how long has he suffered from the premature announcement syndrome that he appears to have? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I do not recall saying South Auckland was the only place that would see some increase in State houses. I have said that National has a high priority on upgrading the State housing stock particularly in light of this $2 billion deficit that members will see some increases in State house numbers and that we will most certainly be better managing the State house sector. 
Jonathan Young 
: What will be your priority? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would love to know your priorities but I am sure the member meant to ask what the Minister’s priority is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member makes a perfectly valid point. Could Jonathan Young direct his question to the Minister. 
Jonathan Young 
: What will be the Minister’s priority? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The National Government will not be directing the Housing New Zealand Corporation to gut the depreciation fund in the way that Labour did. We are going to take a balanced but urgent approach. We are going to upgrade these State houses and we intend to do it with some urgency. 
I seek leave to table the briefing that says there is $2 billion worth of deferred maintenance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Correction—Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill 
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Correction—Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:651;Page:707] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members the vote on the question at the third reading of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill was announced as Ayes 65 and Noes 57. The correct result is Ayes 65 and Noes 47. I order that the result be corrected.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:651;Page:756] 
Sittings of the House 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek the leave for the House to rise a couple of minutes early this evening and to resume at 7.30 p.m. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise at this point for the dinner break and to resume at 7.30 p.m. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Voting — Correction—Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill 
Voting — Correction—Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:651;Page:707] 
Voting 
Correction—Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members the vote on the question at the third reading of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill was announced as Ayes 65 and Noes 57. The correct result is Ayes 65 and Noes 47. I order that the result be corrected.
Members Sworn 
Members Sworn 
[Volume:651;Page:707] 
Tuesday 16 December 2008 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Members Sworn 
Catherine Delahunty was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took her seat in the House.
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2591] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I apologise but I have some documents I would like to table in relation to the questions I was asking the Minister of Education. I would have intervened but I did not want to interrupt the rather robust— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will just proceed with his seeking of leave. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: My first document is a statement from the New Zealand Principals Federation outlining its concerns that the Minister of Education is seeking to implement national standards which will result in schools being compared in the press. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is it a newspaper clipping? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No it is not. It is a statement from the New Zealand Principals Federation. The member was obviously not listening. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker will deal with these matters. The document seems like a genuine document from the New Zealand Principals Federation. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The second document is from the Canterbury Primary Principals Association dated 7 April which states: “Flawed National Standards proposal ignores teaching and learning”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The third and last document is a letter from Philip Harding the principal of Paparoa Street School in Papanui outlining his deep concerns about Mrs Tolley’s lack of understanding of these issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
[Volume:653;Page:2576] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I also wish to raise an important point of order about your requirements of Ministers around the answering of questions. 
Yesterday you gave an additional supplementary question to Mr Mallard on the basis that I had not answered his question “Why did he tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear?”. Mr Mallard repeated that question five times in supplementary questions and points of order demanding an answer and that was backed up by you. But the actual New Zealand Press Association quote from me was “I never said I was acting for him.” 
My substantive point is that I think that as Speaker you need to be quite cautious in insisting that Ministers must answer unauthenticated questions as Ministers have not had the opportunity to check whether they are correct. Nor is it fair for you to require Ministers to instantly be able to determine whether such a quote is correct because I do not think there would be a member in the House who could instantly recall every comment that had been publicly reported. I did address the question in answering the substantive matter of what I and Mr Judge had discussed. Given the ground that you are pushing on this matter of Ministers answering questions I think it would be helpful if over the adjournment you gave a considered ruling in respect of this issue of unauthenticated supplementary questions.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
[Volume:653;Page:2575] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member made a perfectly fair point for a start. I do not think that the last part of that point of order was appropriate; in fact it was inappropriate. Be that as it may the honourable Leader of the House the Hon Gerry Brownlee has been working with the Business Committee on trying to resolve this issue because it is an issue of concern to the House. What has been recommended is that we allow a little bit of time to get it sorted out. There are one or two other issues around written questions as well that are not quite as straightforward as that one. I am endeavouring to make progress and if in 3 or 4 weeks’ time the member is still not happy he is welcome to raise the matter with me again.
[Volume:653;Page:2575] 
My simple request of you is—given that informative letter—whether you would consider writing to the Prime Minister to request that he write to his Ministers asking them to comply with your directive so that the question and answer process is treated with respect and not with the contempt that that Minister has shown.
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
[Volume:653;Page:2575] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it under Standing Order 377 “Contents of replies”. On 8 April 2009 you were good enough to write me a letter—and I am grateful for that—on the matter of a question that I had asked the Minister of Corrections in respect of how many Cabinet papers had been lodged by Cabinet committees the reply for which was that there were other avenues to obtain the information. You stated that you do not believe that such replies are acceptable and that you would be concerned if Ministers were to take the view that they could avoid their obligation to answer parliamentary questions simply because other processes to obtain information exist. Finally you said that Ministers have a responsibility to the House for the public offices they hold that they should take questions seriously and that they should endeavour to give informative replies.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:653;Page:2575] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I anticipate that at about 5.30 p.m. on 29 April there will indeed be a controversial statement delivered to the House. In fact we would be most disappointed if it did not have a degree of that attached to it. In essence I think the member can rest assured that his colleagues will be able to join him in enjoying any festivities that he may provide. Of course I warn them that former Ministers of Finance are not notorious for their generosity in these matters.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:653;Page:2609] 
Sittings of the House 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made very good progress on the Government’s plans for the week and in view of discussions held at the Business Committee earlier this week I seek leave for the House to rise for the Easter adjournment. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Guy Nathan: Sittings of the House 
Guy Nathan: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:653;Page:2609] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made very good progress on the Government’s plans for the week and in view of discussions held at the Business Committee earlier this week I seek leave for the House to rise for the Easter adjournment. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:653;Page:2609] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bills read a third time.
Delahunty Catherine: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Delahunty Catherine: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:653;Page:2604] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. 
Paul Quinn 
: Kia ora. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: Kia ora. 
I stand to speak in support of the speeches already given on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill by Green MP Metiria Turei. Metiria has spoken several times on this bill and its friends. She has spoken with lucidity fairness and a sense of justice. It is the duty of this House to legislate with a strong sense of justice as opposed to a strong sense of populism or vengeance or a misguided commitment to policies that fail to deter crime. Therefore the Green Party will be voting against the legislation. Kia ora.
Brownlee Gerry: Offices of Parliament — Address to Governor-General 
Brownlee Gerry: Offices of Parliament — Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:653;Page:2600] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General commending to His Excellency the appropriations and information for the 2009-10 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 
. 
The Public Finance Act provides for funding for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General the Office of the Ombudsmen and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—all to be determined by Parliament through the Officers of Parliament Committee. As part of this process the Officers of Parliament Committee examines submissions for each officer to reach a decision on the funding required for the officers to carry out their duties. The committee then makes recommendations to the House which are in turn fed into the Budget process. 
It is worth noting that this motion is moved today by the Leader of the House rather than the Minister of Finance as would normally be the case for appropriations. That is because it would be inappropriate for the Minister to deal directly with these budgetary requests as these officers are not members of the executive nor are they departments of State. They are in fact quite independent and therefore are extended that higher status of Officer of Parliament. 
Today the National Party will be supporting these appropriations. It is important to realise that these officers are not beholden to any political party but only to Parliament itself. 
I thank the Officers of Parliament Committee for its ongoing work in assisting these important statutory officers to do their duty. Once this motion is passed the remainder of the process to ensure that the appropriations are enacted will be put in place.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2600] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document entitled “Parole Hearings Change Will Enhance Public Safety” released by the Minister of Corrections at the very time she was denying responsibility— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That last point should not have been made under a point of order and the member knows that. He is deliberately breaching the Standing Orders in doing that. Leave has been sought to table a document. Is there any objection to that? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2599] 
2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did John Judge convey his apology to him for Mr Judge’s inability to attend the financial review of ACC on 12 March; if so how? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 No because there was never any invitation made for him to attend the select committee hearing on 12 March. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the member not hear Nick Smith apologise for Mr Judge at that committee hearing and say that Mr Judge had asked him to convey that apology? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The primary question asked: “Did John Judge convey his apology to him …”—that is to me—and the answer was no. So I do not see why I need to answer the second question.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2595] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I am impressed that the Minister went along to the select committee. When I was in Opposition and on a select committee it was very difficult to get Ministers to come to it. Labour seems to object when Ministers go to select committees. 
Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Ministers have to have some relationship with the truth. I invite the member to give a single example of when I was invited— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When I am on my feet Dr Cullen the member will resume his seat. It was pointed out the other day that in fact refuting an answer is not allowable through a point of order. It is not allowable for the member to do that. The member can ask a supplementary question that challenges what the Minister has said. If the member feels that what the Minister has said is a personal reflection then there is a Standing Order that will enable the Minister to have a statement withdrawn but he cannot use a point of order to question an answer. That option is simply not provided for—for good reason. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have repeated yesterday’s error if I may say so by actually misunderstanding the point of order. What I am objecting to is the content of an answer that is likely to lead to disorder because it is so offensive. If it is offensive and exception is taken to it it is a matter of order. To pretend that the Minister who was most related to that Minister when he was in Opposition refused to attend the Finance and Expenditure Committee is a lie. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat right now. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen knows the Standing Orders better than anyone else. Is he raising with me under Standing Order 116 the fact that he feels that a personal reflection was cast on him by that answer? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I will make a personal explanation if that is what you want. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is that the point of order the member is making? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What do you want to do? I will do it that way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am trying to assist the member because there are not many options. He is either under Standing Order 116 making a point of order that a personal reflection has been made on him personally or—[ 
Interruption 
] I have asked for order. This is a serious matter because I am dealing with a very senior member of the House in his last days. I will not tolerate my rulings being questioned here. I do not care who is questioning them. This House has wasted enough time today. Either he is seeking under Standing Order 116 to have the comment withdrawn because he feels that it has cast an aspersion on him personally—and if that is the case then I ask the Minister to withdraw the comment because a personal affront has been taken— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am dealing with a point of order. Personal offence has been taken. I ask the Minister to withdraw the comment.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2594] 
12.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes because they are all hard-working and competent Ministers. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister for ACC given the clear inconsistencies in the explanations he has given and those provided by the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in relation to the circumstances that led to the Minister’s attendance at the committee on 12 March?
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2594] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the tongue-lashing given at the back end of that point of order I feel is it appropriate that I respond. I simply ask this question. Given that we are quoting from the Cabinet Office documentation provided not by Phil Goff’s Government or any other Government but by this Government given that that is what the documentation says and given that in the answer to me to written question No. 01385 the Minister makes no reference to the point she has made in one of her usual slipshod answers— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat right at this moment. [ 
Interruption 
] He will sit down right now. We will hear no more on this. The process of points of order will not be abused in that manner. I realise— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: She did! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to reflect on what he has just done. I am on my feet he has interjected and he should reflect on why I do not throw him out for the rest of the day. I am not going to because I want him to sit there and think about just how foolish he has been. He can laugh if he likes but I am deadly serious. If the member does that again he will be out not just for question time but for the rest of the day. That will apply to any member. Now I want a little order to come into the proceedings. I realise that is the last day in the session and that school holidays are starting but we are not school children in this Chamber.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2594] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not going to hear any more on this. I allowed the Minister to make that point of order but this is not a matter for the House now. I make that very clear to members and if the honourable member is seeking to—[ 
Interruption 
] Will the Hon Steve Chadwick please—please—allow the fact that we are hearing a point of order? I realise she was not the only one. This matter cannot be debated further in the House now because it is not a matter for the House to resolve. As Speaker I can deliberate only on matters of order for the House. The background to ministerial responsibility is not a matter for the House now. The matter can be pursued with the Government through other means but I would like the House to proceed if possible with question No. 12.
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2594] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Earlier today the Hon Clayton Cosgrove raised a question regarding responsibility for the Parole Board and I undertook to advise whether there was in fact an issue. I can refer the member and the House to the answer to written question No. 1996 (2007) from the Minister of Corrections the Hon Phil Goff in which he said “The information you have requested is the responsibility of the New Zealand Parole Board an independent statutory body for whom there is no ministerial responsibility.” So I tell Mr Cosgrove to get his facts right!
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2593] 
11.  
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What reports has he received on the Government’s initiatives to assist small and medium sized businesses? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I have of course seen reports relating to the Government’s February announcement of a suite of measures to support small business. The measures include 11 tax changes worth some $480 million an expansion of the export credit scheme extended jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal expansion of business advice services and prompt repayment requirements for Government agencies. These changes are designed to try to help small business through what are very difficult times. By way of just a couple of examples I tell members that the package was called a brilliant start by the Motel Association of New Zealand and Claire Massey the director of the New Zealand Centre for SME Research said that the package was sending the right signal that the Government was listening and that it was here to help during a difficult time. 
Todd McClay 
: Has the Minister received any reports from chambers of commerce about the Government’s initiatives; if so what do they say? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Throughout the country chambers of commerce have expressed their approval of the package. The Auckland Chamber of Commerce for example described it as a welcome investment in the small business sector. The Rotorua Chamber of Commerce an organisation the member will be familiar with welcomed the initiatives and indeed hosted about 320 people at a function recently to hear the Prime Minister talk about the Government’s small business package. This organisation thought that it should balance things up and therefore agreed to host a function with the Hon Phil Goff in which he was to outline Labour’s objections to the proposed assistance to small businesses. I am delighted to report that only four tickets were sold to that function. One of them was purchased by Steve Chadwick and therefore there was some uncertainty that it was ever paid for and ultimately Mr Goff’s function was cancelled. 
Hon Members 
: This is a speech! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members are taking a lot of time in question time today; questions have been long and answers have been very long. I do not blame members for interjections that ask whether the answer was a speech.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2593] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I understand the way matters evolved there the member took a point of order to seek leave to table a document. At the time we were in the process of moving on to question No. 11 and he interrupted that—which he is perfectly entitled to do—under a point of order to seek leave to table a document. Objection was voiced when I sought leave so that is the end of that matter.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2593] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a very serious point of order because a ministerial position could well hang on it. I seek leave to table page 937 of the  
Ministerial Office Handbook 
 July 2008. I accept that this is a document that is available but because I am going to quote from it I want it available to the person speaking for the Prime Minister so that he knows that the quote is accurate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table this document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Bill English 
: He cannot get up and give a debating speech when he is seeking leave so there is objection.
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2587] 
7.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to support working parents? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am pleased to say that this Government is taking another step towards helping hard-working parents who are juggling jobs and looking after their children. We are funding some new programmes to give hundreds of families a break in the school holidays that start tomorrow. We are providing more than $100000 just for extra places on a few Blue Light for kids programmes in rural parts of the North Island many in the South Island and in the central North Island. I know better than most what happens when idle children have too much time and not enough supervision in holiday periods. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Is the Government providing any further additional support for youth services? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes we are. Altogether just for the Easter school holidays we are making about $450000 available for 15 youth services projects around the country. As well as those school holidays programmes there is support for mentoring programmes youth community facilities outdoor recreation and evening recreation activities. We know that prevention is better in the end. I bumped into an Opposition colleague at the airport and it was especially pleasing to get talking about one of those services in Mangere and about how we could support it during the Easter school holidays. The service will be providing 500 places in a holiday programme for 5 to 16-year-olds. That is a positive thing.
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2581] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold over this question until the Minister of Maori Affairs is present in the House and able to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action? Is there any objection? There is objection.
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2579] 
2.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes because they are hard-working and competent Ministers. 
Hon Annette King 
: When does the Prime Minister lose confidence in a Minister? Would it take for example the Minister of Labour to personally support the illegal opening of businesses at Easter while at the same time saying she does not condone “sort of breaking the law” as stated on TV3 on 6 April or does he allow his Ministers to have a personal view and a ministerial view on their portfolio responsibilities? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Minister of Labour I think was expressing the same frustration that Ministers of Labour have expressed for several decades in trying to oversee our Easter trading laws. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why does the Prime Minister continue to express confidence in the Minister of Internal Affairs who has now on no fewer than four occasions failed to disclose all details of his “public-private” trip to India when just after the election the Prime Minister said that the standard he would be setting for his Ministers would be one strike and then they would be out? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has set out his expectations clearly and the Minister of Internal Affairs has taken all the steps necessary to meet those expectations. 
Hon Annette King 
: What is the Prime Minister’s response to a Minister who has preached spending restraint supported the sacking of 70 staff—throwing them on the unemployment scrap heap—then has wasted $1800 of taxpayers’ money on a helicopter ride to get an overview of a university campus which is something the Minister of Education could have got off Google? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot believe that a senior member of the Labour Party is criticising anyone about wasting public money after 10 years of Labour’s fiscal recklessness. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by his comment that the  
Cabinet Manual 
 is “only a sort of rule book”; and does that mean that he expects his Ministers to only sort of adhere to it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It would be very difficult for the current Prime Minister to show the same flexibility of attitude to the  
Cabinet Manual 
 that the previous Prime Minister did.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
[Volume:653;Page:2577] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday we heard a valedictory speech from the member for Mt Albert. The House is now going into a 2-week adjournment. Could you help the House by telling us whether you have received a letter of resignation from that member; if so what date does it take effect? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a very interesting situation whereby the Speaker is required to answer the question. Let me be cautious in case I am not aware of a letter having been received. I will just consult a little which Ministers are not allowed to do so I do seek privilege here. Unlike the situation with the Hon Dr Michael Cullen from whom I have received a letter as far I am aware—and I stress “as far as I am aware” because something may be in transit between the relevant member’s office and my office—I have not received a letter from the Rt Hon Helen Clark so I do not know exactly from which date her resignation might be effective. I trust that the honourable member will remedy that situation because I do expect to receive a letter.