edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7094] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that is an interesting sort of point but it falls to one side when we consider that if you applied that logic then you would be also applying it to question No. 4 on today’s Order Paper which was accepted and which talks about “ACC should tighten procedures to limit access” etc. That is no different from the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage being asked about encouraging philanthropic giving to the arts. That is quite a reasonable sort of step. The Office of the Clerk is very very experienced in this matter. I know that its staff routinely sends questions back for correction. Quite often when we get the first sheets we see they have been corrected in all sorts of ways. Given that it is normally not the Government that asks most of the questions we assume that others occasionally make those mistakes. But in this case I do not think there is one. I think it is very very clear that this is an appropriate question for the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage to answer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I believe that I do not need to hear further on this. Interestingly this question is actually a genuine question. The Speaker cannot know what announcements the Government might have recently made on this matter. It is actually a genuine question. There are other questions on today’s Order Paper that I would say as the honourable Leader of the House has suggested are more marginal. We do accept questions that seek opinions now. In fact as the Leader of the House pointed out question No. 4 not only seeks an opinion but also is a hypothetical question and it was not ruled out of order. But this question is a genuine question; it is asking what announcements have recently been made. The answer may be none for all I know. I applaud the fact that it is a genuine question.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7094] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I now regard this as slightly more serious because you have accepted the question. It might have been done by your staff or on your behalf but the responsibility for acceptance of the question is yours. That is why I have taken it up with you in I think the only way we possibly can when we think an error has been made on your part and that is to ask you to rule whether this is in fact a proper question. The only thing that could be done Mr Speaker would be to deal with the question after question No. 12 so that you can satisfy yourself that you have acted properly.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7093] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to draw to your attention the wording of this question and to ask you where in the question there is any indication of ministerial responsibility. This question asks nothing about Government policy; there is nothing about anything that any Minister has done. The Minister is not responsible for any announcement made by third parties. I submit to you that there is nothing in the wording of the question that indicates any Government responsibility at all and therefore there is no ministerial responsibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has raised an interesting point. Obviously the question was scrutinised by the Office of the Clerk when it was accepted and it has been accepted. My dilemma as the Speaker is that it would be pretty rash for the Speaker now to make judgments about the issue about announcements because it may well be that the Government has made some announcement and I cannot as Speaker make any judgment about that. I really think that I cannot assist the member because I would be acting quite improperly as Speaker to be making some judgment about whether the Government might have made announcements.
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7091] 
9.  
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What progress has been made on the review of adventure tourism? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Today I have released the terms of reference for the review. A governance group has been formed to ensure that industry is closely engaged in the review. I expect that the review will be completed by March 2010. 
Louise Upston 
: What has been the industry reaction to the review? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The industry has been very positive and is already contributing to the review. The director of white-water rafting company Ultimate Descents Tim Marshall says: “I see this as a good thing to make sure we are all up to standard”. The industry understands that ensuring the highest safety standards across the whole sector is critical to protecting New Zealand’s international reputation.
Parata Hekia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parata Hekia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7089] 
7.  
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Tena koe Te Mana Whakawa—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the House to please show some courtesy to a member who has been called to ask her question. She has every right to do so. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: What progress has the Government’s Community Max initiative made? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce that over 830 opportunities have been created for our young people. I have been impressed to see communities stepping up. In fact over 172 groups so far have already stepped up. They are showing real innovation. That is what happens when we trust communities to know what works for them and let them get on with it. 
Hekia Parata 
: How has the Community Max initiative given opportunities to young people? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Streets Ahead 237 is a group that does incredible work with youth gangs in Porirua which I know the member knows. These former youth gang members are now working with other young people thanks to Community Max to mentor them through the same journey and to more positive outcomes. I have also had the pleasure of meeting young people and working on three Community Max projects in Mangere thanks to the Tamaki Ki Raro Trust. They quite genuinely now have a renewed sense of pride in themselves because they are getting a wage and doing good. 
Amy Adams 
: What further examples can the Minister give where Community Max is making a difference? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: In Canterbury the Ngai Tahu Community Max project is enabling 16 young Maori to help restore historic wahi tapu sites of significance to the iwi. In the far north the community group Street Maytz is making a real difference getting young people to help with crime prevention graffiti and community patrolling. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does the Minister believe that good progress has been made for Maori and Pasifika youth in the uptake of the Community Max initiative and are there any specific issues for these groups that have emerged during the recruitment process? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes I believe excellent progress has been made for Maori and Pacific youth. Of the Community Max participants over two-thirds are Maori and Pasifika youth. I have not been aware of any specific issues. Everyone is giving me positive feedback on how it is working. If the member knows anything that we can tweak then please would she let me know.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7087] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That is utter rubbish. There are all sorts of interjections across the Chamber. Dr Nick Smith said that the paper had been misrepresented. Considering the number of times that people have said in debate that someone has misrepresented something that someone has been reckless with the truth or some other such thing the member knows darned well that it is not in any way malicious. It is part of the normal banter in the House. I know that Labour members are very upset; they are not on their game—
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7087] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member Nick Smith has just accused my colleague of misrepresenting a paper. The clear implication is that my colleague did not tell the truth when she sought leave to table a document. He accused her of a breach of privilege from across the Chamber and I take offence at that.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7087] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a paper relating to question No. 4. It is  
Sensitive Claims 
 a newsletter from the Accident Compensation Corporation which states that the corporation is currently undertaking a comprehensive value-for-money review in which it is scrutinising the accident compensation scheme costs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7086] 
5.  
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he consider borrowing $40 billion to be “no trouble”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: In the past month overseas investors have told the Minister that they agree with the Government’s responsible management of the New Zealand economy. Therefore yes the Minister is confident that the Government will be able to borrow the extra $40 billion required over the next 4 years. That is a significant undertaking. We are in effect doubling Crown debt in the next 4 years to maintain entitlements and keep the economy running while simultaneously working to repair the damage inflicted by the previous approximately 9 years of economic mismanagement. 
John Boscawen 
: Does the Minister accept that massive losses in the accident compensation scheme and KiwiRail and the write-down in the student loan book are all a consequence of the poor economic policy that the Government inherited from Labour and why does he not reverse the structural problems that are causing it? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder how this Minister can be responsible for the policies of the previous Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no need for further assistance on that. The member asked the Minister whether the problem that the Government is coping with at the moment by borrowing $40 billion has something to do with the economic policies that were in place when this Government came to power. That is a perfectly legitimate question. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes; the Government is focusing on working very hard to control the debt by taking responsible control of Crown expenditure while maintaining entitlements and by instituting policies that improve productivity and growth for this country. 
John Boscawen 
: Can the Minister explain to the House exactly how hard-working New Zealanders are better off having the Minister of Finance borrow $40 billion to manage Michael Cullen’s economic policies compared with having Michael Cullen do the job himself? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes the country will be better off because this Government is about sensible balanced and responsible economic management. We have rejected the idea of slashing and burning public spending during a recession. We have pledged to maintain entitlements but in all ways to act responsibly to control Crown expenditure and to ensure that it is being spent properly and well. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister confirm that Cabinet papers released this week to Radio New Zealand signalled more savage cuts to come that will impact on the life of every working New Zealander? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No and I would also say that there have not been savage cuts to date. The Government is trying to be sure to act responsibly in a sensible and balanced manner. The member’s characterisation of the Government’s actions to date goes to show how little grasp he has of financial and economic matters.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:658;Page:7079] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I know that Labour members do not like working long hours. That is clear. In the last 4 sitting weeks we have added about 2½ hours to each week. That gives us just over 10 extra hours in 4 weeks—or a bit less; about 8 extra hours in 4 weeks—which is a big strain on Labour members. But as for urgency tonight—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise—or sort of apologise—to the honourable Minister but I say to members that this is not a matter of debate. We should be able to hear the Minister’s response— 
Hon Annette King 
: He shouldn’t be so political. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I agree absolutely that he should not be quite as political either. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If it was not a matter for debate then the Hon Darren Hughes would not have raised the issue that he did. He knows that on Tuesday at the Business Committee I gave notification that we would be advancing Government business during the extra 2½ hours of sitting time this evening. The Hon Trevor Mallard raised the issue of the accident compensation bill but as I noted earlier today he is no longer a Minister let alone anywhere near declaring what the House business might be.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Volume:658;Page:7079] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for his update. Could he tell the House why given that he will call urgency tonight to give us a Thursday evening sitting—putting Parliament into urgency for 4 sitting weeks in a row—the accident compensation bill that was announced by the Government this week will not be considered tonight. Copies of the bill were made available to the media yesterday in the Minister’s briefing pack even though the bill has not been introduced to the House yet which previously the Government has given as a reason for not making legislation available. The urgency we are having tonight was to be set down for the accident compensation bill which has been distributed yet we will not be debating that bill at all tonight which raises the question as to why urgency itself is necessary at this time.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:658;Page:7079] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next Tuesday it is the Government’s intention to complete the remaining stages of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Amendment Bill the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill and the Gangs and Organised Crime Amendment Bill and to make progress on other bills on the Order Paper.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:658;Page:7112] 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and first reading of the Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill and the Committee stages of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill and the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. 
The first bill mentioned today the Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill is designed to facilitate the SmartGate arrangements that New Zealand and Australia are cooperating on at the moment. It does not quite make travel between our two countries a domestic experience but it makes it a very similar experience to domestic travel. The challenge I guess will be for airlines to ensure that bags are available on the carousel as quickly as people are able to progress through the gates. 
The other bills as I have mentioned are at their Committee stage and are part of the Government’s 100-day programme. They are all designed to facilitate the activity of either detecting criminals or denying the opportunity for people to participate in criminal activity. We think that that is a sound reason to make the progress required during this next 2½ hours. It is reasonable for me to signal that the Government does not intend to resume urgency tomorrow morning. We expect to report progress a few minutes before 10 p.m. this evening. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House did not give any reasons why urgency should be accorded to these bills and I think it would be helpful if he— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I do not accept that. The Leader of the House did so and I have accepted his explanation. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Motion Supporting Armed Services 
Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Motion Supporting Armed Services 
[Volume:658;Page:7098] 
Points of Order 
Signage in the Chamber—Motion Supporting Armed Services 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice supporting the defence forces consistent with the signs currently showing on Labour benches. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me understand just exactly what is being sought. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Leave is being sought to move a motion without notice supporting the defence forces consistent with the signs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is being sought to move a motion without notice and there is no question that leave can be sought for that without notice. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is objection. I ask the senior Opposition whip to remove the signage please. I thank the honourable member.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:658;Page:7079] 
Thursday 15 October 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next Tuesday it is the Government’s intention to complete the remaining stages of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Amendment Bill the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill and the Gangs and Organised Crime Amendment Bill and to make progress on other bills on the Order Paper. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for his update. Could he tell the House why given that he will call urgency tonight to give us a Thursday evening sitting—putting Parliament into urgency for 4 sitting weeks in a row—the accident compensation bill that was announced by the Government this week will not be considered tonight. Copies of the bill were made available to the media yesterday in the Minister’s briefing pack even though the bill has not been introduced to the House yet which previously the Government has given as a reason for not making legislation available. The urgency we are having tonight was to be set down for the accident compensation bill which has been distributed yet we will not be debating that bill at all tonight which raises the question as to why urgency itself is necessary at this time. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I know that Labour members do not like working long hours. That is clear. In the last 4 sitting weeks we have added about 2½ hours to each week. That gives us just over 10 extra hours in 4 weeks—or a bit less; about 8 extra hours in 4 weeks—which is a big strain on Labour members. But as for urgency tonight—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise—or sort of apologise—to the honourable Minister but I say to members that this is not a matter of debate. We should be able to hear the Minister’s response— 
Hon Annette King 
: He shouldn’t be so political. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I agree absolutely that he should not be quite as political either. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If it was not a matter for debate then the Hon Darren Hughes would not have raised the issue that he did. He knows that on Tuesday at the Business Committee I gave notification that we would be advancing Government business during the extra 2½ hours of sitting time this evening. The Hon Trevor Mallard raised the issue of the accident compensation bill but as I noted earlier today he is no longer a Minister let alone anywhere near declaring what the House business might be.
Boscawen John: Insolvency Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Boscawen John: Insolvency Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1960] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 It is 1 minute to 6pm but let me very briefly say that the Minister of Commerce Hon Simon Power gave a very detailed summary of the Insolvency Amendment Bill’s provisions. He was followed by the Hon Lianne Dalziel giving her very detailed knowledge of the circumstances that gave rise to the original Insolvency Bill being passed just 2 years ago. 
This is a bill that the ACT Party will be supporting for referral to the Commerce Committee. I do not propose to go into the details of the bill. But I would like to talk about the issues of insolvency and saving because insolvency is an issue that I personally know something about. 
Debate interrupted.
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1927] 
11.  
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Will the Government support the policy of amending section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994 as set out in my Copyright (Internet Service Provider Account Termination Policy) Bill; if not why not? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 No not as set out in the member’s bill. The Government’s policy is to give Internet providers and right-holders 1 month to come up with a code of practice. That time frame has yet to expire and although there are some challenges I am not prepared to prejudge the outcome. 
Clare Curran 
: How does the Government expect section 92A of the Copyright Act to be able to come into force given that TelstraClear has vetoed the code of practice being developed by the significant stakeholders? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am advised that the rest of the Telecommunications Carriers Forum the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand and other right-holders are making real progress on the code of practice. If TelstraClear wants to be excluded from the arrangement that is its choice. I met with right-holders as recently as 7 o’clock this morning and according to the member’s press release yesterday her bill requires ministerial approval of any code before section 92A comes into force meaning that it still relies on the parties coming to an agreement first. 
Clare Curran 
: Will the Government establish an independent adjudicator to resolve copyright disputes; if so who; and if not why not? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am not prepared to prejudge the outcome of the negotiations that are continuing at the moment. I find the Labour Party’s position on this issue rather confusing. The member wants to keep section 92A but amend it; the former Minister Judith Tizard said that it should come into force as it is explaining that it was left deliberately vague as “at no stage did I think … I had the answer to the process”; and the Labour candidate for Hunua Mr Jordan Carter is the contact for yesterday’s press release from InternetNZ that said that section 92A should be dumped. Maybe Labour needs its own code of practice.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1923] 
9.  
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Did he discuss the proposed removal of the Minister of Conservation’s powers to make the final decision on applications for restricted coastal activities under section 119 with the Maori Party before agreeing to remove this power from the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Conservation 
: No the Minister did not have any direct discussions with the Maori Party but he was advised by the Minister for the Environment that there were extensive discussions with the Maori Party on all aspects of the resource management reform bill. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Did the Minister raise with the Minister for the Environment any of the concerns raised in the Department of Conservation’s submission to him on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill; if not why not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister of Conservation had an extensive discussion with the Minister for the Environment about the veto on restricted coastal activities that was provided by the Minister. It is my view that the veto used by the previous Government completely discredited the process and I think most New Zealanders welcome the fact that future decisions will be made by the Environment Court and not by Ministers of the Crown on individual consents. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Does that confirm that the Minister made no effort to protect his statutory responsibilities as the final decision-maker on restricted coastal activities which enable him to fulfil his role as an advocate for the preservation and protection of New Zealand’s natural and historical resources because discussion between Ministers went in a different direction? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that the member who is the previous Minister of Conservation did not change one single decision on restricted coastal activities. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What’s that got to do with the answer? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well it is very important. Let me tell members why it is important. Why would we want to hold up consents for months and months when the court has decided that the powers that the Minister holds which the member is making such a big deal of are very very narrow and it would be only in extreme circumstances that a Minister could overturn a decision of the Environment Court? 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I seek leave to table a paper to the Cabinet economic growth and infrastructure committee on 16 February on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill with the comment “Discussion amongst Ministers went in a different direction.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1920] 
6.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she seen that support the introduction of the Government’s Job Support Scheme? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 There has been broad support for the first stage of the Government’s Job Support Scheme. Gareth Morgan economist said: “I think it’s quite well-thought-out.” Peter Townsend Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce chief executive said it is a step in the right direction. Vernon Small in the  
Dominion Post  
this morning called it a “win-win when most of the economic news is lose lose lose.” We promised action from the Job Summit and we have delivered it. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How is work progressing on developing the new scheme for smaller companies that are having trouble keeping staff? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Just today I have come from a meeting with Workstream 1 from the Job Summit which is meeting to design a completely new programme for small to medium sized employers recognising that their needs are far more diverse than those of big employers and it is more complicated to design a programme to suit them. We will be announcing something in weeks not months. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What initiatives did the previous Labour Government put in place to support small companies? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: That is a good question. I have been unable to find anything that the previous Government put in place to help to prevent any redundancies and to save those jobs. The previous Government was not able to put together a Job Summit. In fact when the Hon Lianne Dalziel was Minister for Small Business she received a report from the Small Business Advisory Group saying the best thing the Government could do to help business would be to introduce a 90-day trial period. I am incredibly proud that this Government delivered on that. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has she also seen reports from the country’s biggest private sector union describing the Government’s 9-day fortnight as a miserable subsidy that will be rejected by workers? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have seen reports from the current Labour Party president complaining about the scheme. But I have also seen a report from Peter Conway Secretary of the Council of Trade Unions who says it benefits the workers the company and the country as a whole. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has she noted the conflict between finance Minister Bill English who said that some people are expecting wage subsidies but that is probably unreal and the Prime Minister’s comments that he wants employers to provide such a subsidy; if so whose side is she on? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There is no conflict. What this Government has done over the last 3 months while it has been here has been to discuss the best way forward in terms of saving jobs. Many ideas have been thrown out there. This Government is proud to say some of the good ideas have come from outside Wellington and we will back the good ones.
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility 
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:652;Page:1909] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In considering your responsibility as Speaker to determine whether a question on the matter of the foreshore and seabed is in order you might care to take into account for example  
Hansard 
 Volume 616 at pages 11820 and 11870 and at least eight other references in the 2002-05 Parliament where questions on the foreshore and seabed matter were put to and answered by the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I take the member’s point.
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility 
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:652;Page:1909] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I draw to your attention the important factual matter in relation to this. Mr Brownlee has repeated the statement he made yesterday. In fact— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Matters that the member considers to be fact are not matters of order and the member knows that.
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility 
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:652;Page:1908] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not intend to take more time on this issue today because matters will be dealt with as they arise. All I have done is pay the House the courtesy of explaining why a difficulty arose yesterday so that in the future should that situation arise I do not out of the blue rule out of order a member’s question about reports in an area where a Minister has no responsibility. I simply wanted to pay members the courtesy of alerting them to the fact that where the Minister has no responsibility I should not allow questions relating to reports. In the future I shall not allow those questions. I am purely today extending the House that courtesy. 
I have made it clear that I will take a wide interpretation as has been the practice in the past but I make the point that the Speaker does not allocate ministerial responsibilities; the Government does. The Speaker cannot be the judge during question time of whether a Minister has responsibility in a particular area and that is why it is important that the Speaker does not try to do it. The Speaker cannot determine for every Minister what all his or her responsibilities are and at the end of the day the Ministers in the Government have to advise us if they do not have responsibility in the area. But as was pointed out yesterday where a Minister has advised that he or she has no responsibility then questions are out of order if they seek to ask about reports in an area where the Minister has no responsibility. 
I do not intend to pursue this matter further today. It will obviously come up as the business of the House goes on. I am merely today extending to the House the courtesy of showing how I intend to treat such situations in the future.
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility 
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:652;Page:1908] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The points raised by the shadow Leader of the House are valid inasmuch as the Minister of Maori Affairs does have a very wide brief. However it is not uncommon for different aspects of any particular ministry to be wound up inside some form of Government consideration outside of that particular Minister’s purview. That is quite normal. I note that in the last Parliament questions relating to the foreshore and seabed were not accepted by the Minister of Maori Affairs but rather were referred to the Attorney-General who at the time was Dr Michael Cullen. It is not unusual for Governments to make those choices and given that answers given need to be consistent with the public good and interest it surely is for the Government to decide who the best Minister is to represent the Government’s position on a particular issue. All Ministers receive a lot of general advice about matters in other ministries that may overlap their own portfolio responsibilities yet no one would assume that they have the total responsibility for answering for the Government on those particular issues.
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility 
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:652;Page:1907] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Speaking to your ruling I want to raise a related matter arising out of it. As you stated the Minister of Maori Affairs informed the Clerk’s Office that he did not have ministerial responsibility for the Foreshore and Seabed Act the review thereof or information contained in any report on the review thereof. I think that raises an interesting issue. Does this mean that it is sufficient for the Minister to inform the Clerk’s Office that he or she has no responsibility for a matter for that to be determinative or in the end is it a matter for you—because the Clerk’s Office is acting on your behalf in accepting or rejecting questions—to consider? Clearly Ministers will otherwise find it very easy to avoid questions by simply saying that it is not their responsibility even though it patently may well be. 
The related issue is particularly the case in terms of the Ministry of Maori Affairs and the other so-called “population ministries”. These ministries have a very wide policy brief. They cover all matters of Government policy relating particularly to the population group with which they deal. So for Maori Affairs Te Puni Kokiri will report to its Minister on matters with any particular relevance to Maori. The Minister will be expected within Cabinet—or in the Cabinet committee in this case—to advance views on behalf of that population group in the general discussion. It seems to me that it will be very hard to consider that the Foreshore and Seabed Act does not in one way or another have particular relevance for Maori. It would be hard to imagine a general piece of legislation that is more closely related to the interests of Maori than that particular Act because it relates to the issue of how to deal with customary rights claims. Despite one portion of the Act the reality is that almost certainly only Maori can make an assertion of customary rights claims in the foreshore and seabed area. It seems to me that we are now in the position where the Minister of Maori Affairs has a very narrow brief in terms of his accountability to Parliament and we will find it almost impossible to hold him to account. He may find this satisfactory but I doubt that the general public will find it satisfactory.
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility 
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:652;Page:1907] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yesterday a question to the Minister of Maori Affairs was lodged and accepted. The question related to the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Subsequently the Minister of Maori Affairs advised the Clerk’s Office that he had no responsibility for the review. The question was reworked to ensure that it related to the Minister’s area of responsibility—advice he had received from Te Puni Kokiri about the membership of the review group. In the House supplementary questions were asked that related to reports the Minister had received about the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. 
I have reviewed the  
Hansard 
 and on reflection those questions were out of order. Where a question asks about reports received those reports must relate to a matter for which the Minister has responsibility. The Minister had advised the Clerk that he had no responsibility for the review. Had I immediately ruled those questions out of order many of the subsequent points of order could have been dealt with much more expediently and in fact may not have even been necessary. I apologise to the House for not dealing with those supplementary questions at the time. However I intend to follow the practice of previous Speakers in taking a wide view of ministerial responsibility. Unless on the face of it there is no ministerial responsibility I propose to allow supplementary questions; I will not take the initiative in ruling them out. It will be as Speaker Burke ruled in 1987 incumbent on the Minister to challenge the validity of such questions.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:652;Page:1907] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That is a fair inquiry. The Budget Policy Statement debate will take 2 hours as is set down under the Standing Orders. A members’ day in the normal course would follow that.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:652;Page:1907] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for that information. Could he indicate given what he told the Business Committee whether it is the Government’s intention to allow the members’ day to occur on the Wednesday or whether the Government is considering taking urgency for the introduction and first readings of any bills; if so which bills?
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:652;Page:1907] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will be in adjournment although select committees will continue their business. When the House resumes on Tuesday 24 March it is the Government’s intention to progress the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and other first readings of bills that are to be introduced or that are currently on the Order Paper. That will include the Appropriation (Financial Review) Bill which will be read a first and second time with the financial review debate set down for 7 April. Wednesday 25 March will be a members’ day. However on that day the general debate will be set aside so that the House can debate the Budget Policy Statement.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:652;Page:1907] 
Thursday 12 March 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will be in adjournment although select committees will continue their business. When the House resumes on Tuesday 24 March it is the Government’s intention to progress the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and other first readings of bills that are to be introduced or that are currently on the Order Paper. That will include the Appropriation (Financial Review) Bill which will be read a first and second time with the financial review debate set down for 7 April. Wednesday 25 March will be a members’ day. However on that day the general debate will be set aside so that the House can debate the Budget Policy Statement. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for that information. Could he indicate given what he told the Business Committee whether it is the Government’s intention to allow the members’ day to occur on the Wednesday or whether the Government is considering taking urgency for the introduction and first readings of any bills; if so which bills? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That is a fair inquiry. The Budget Policy Statement debate will take 2 hours as is set down under the Standing Orders. A members’ day in the normal course would follow that.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1269] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the House accord urgency to the first reading and the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill and Government orders Nos 1 and 2.
Roy Eric: Urgency 
Roy Eric: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1269] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Let me bring to the House’s attention Speaker’s ruling 12/3. It quite clearly sets out that the urgency is broken so I will put the motion. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no. That does not say that at all. Speaker’s ruling 12/3 is about third readings coming back from a committee. That is nonsense. Speaker’s ruling 12/3 has nothing to do with that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No I will put the motion. I have ruled. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It says “Where bills are reported back … from committee”. There is no bill reported back from a committee in this case. That cannot possibly be correct. You may be able to find another Speaker’s ruling that heads in that direction but ruling 12/3 does not do that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry; it is Speaker’s ruling 12/5. The question is that the motion be agreed to. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What motion are we voting on now? Can the member move it again? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Would the member restate the motion?
Vote: Address in Reply 
Vote: Address in Reply 
[Volume:652;Page:1257] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the following words be inserted in the amendment before the words “And expects”: “And commits to a Green New Deal to simultaneously combat the economic crisis and the climate crisis in a way which is fair to all New Zealanders to give our environment the greater protection it desperately needs and on which our economy entirely depends and to conduct politics in a way which is honest open and democratic and supports the continued representation in this House of the true diversity of voices in Aotearoa New Zealand.” 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:652;Page:1219] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is the Government’s intention to take urgency next week. A members’ day is unlikely. It is also likely that the House will be in urgency until around 10 p.m. next Thursday night as well.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:652;Page:1219] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 Can we have an indication from the Leader of the House whether it is the intention to take urgency next week? If not it is presumably therefore the intention to allow a members’ day to occur on Wednesday as would occur under Standing Orders.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:652;Page:1219] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 17 February it is the Government’s intention to progress the Electoral Amendment Bill the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill and other first readings to be introduced next week.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1277] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a first time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 108 Noes 13. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.