edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Finlayson Christopher: Wills Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Wills Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10875] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call and deal with various aspects of Part 2 and in particular with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper which relates to omitting any reference in the schedule to the Evidence Amendment Act 1980 (No 2) and not substituting any reference to the Evidence Act 2006. I raised this matter when the House was in Committee on 19 June. I queried the reference to the Evidence Amendment Act (No 2) and I said that I had difficulty finding any particular reference to an equivalent provision in the Evidence Act 2006 which as the Committee knows the House passed a few months ago. So National has no problem with the proposed amendments that are made in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. They make a lot of sense. 
A couple of other points arise from the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 129 dated 24 July. There are a number of consequential amendments and as I understand it there will be a need at some stage to go back and deal with clauses 2 and 4 but I am particularly focusing on clause 33 and then following on from the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. National has no problem with the proposed change to clause 33 which seeks to insert a more appropriate definition of “military or seagoing person”. The changes are very minor but they do clarify the matter so National has no problem with that. 
Then there are a couple of references to the commencement date of the legislation. The Minister really should have dealt with this matter in June but he did not. It provided that the legislation was to commence on 1 July 2007. Instead the Minister is proposing that the date of 1 November 2007 be substituted. Again that seems to make a lot of sense although one hopes that for the benefit of testators and testatrixes and also for the profession we would be able to get this legislation through before 1 November. The only thing I would say bearing in mind that 1 November is All Saints’ Day is that I would have thought a more appropriate date would have been 2 November which is—as the Minister knows as an old boy of St Bede’s College—All Souls’ Day when we commemorate the dead. Given that we are dealing with wills legislation I would have thought that was a more appropriate date. But that having been said I say that the proposed changes outlined in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 129 make sense and National will support the legislation.
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:10823] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was directed explicitly to the Prime Minister. I question why it has been transferred to the Minister of Finance when he has publicly stated that he cannot comment on one of the most topical and controversial of our key strategic assets. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member is fully aware having been in the House for some time now it is for the Government to assign the questions.
Turner Judy: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10831] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future on the second reading of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. This bill received 22 submissions. Nearly a quarter of those were from individuals and there was lots of advocacy from clients of mental health services and their families. Those submitters represent the value of this commission—the voice of those reliant on our mental health services—because until funding workforce and service shortfalls are up to standard in a consistent way across the whole country the need for the voice of the commission will remain. 
I note with interest that 2015 has been set as the new date when we can expect to relook at the need for this commission. It makes me wonder two things. Firstly it makes me wonder what services will look like in 8 years’ time and what sort of numbers we will be looking at in New Zealand for those who will be requiring those services from our mental health providers. Current figures suggest that 3 percent of New Zealanders at any one time are in need of mental health services yet currently only about half of those people are registered in some way with a service. This means that we have a long way to go before we have a national service that can provide services at the kind of level that the blueprint for mental health suggests it should. Again I say that the commission provides a vital voice for sufferers of mental health conditions. 
Like previous speakers I want to endorse the work to destigmatise mental health issues within New Zealand. Stigma is a fear-based response to circumstances that touch our lives more closely than we dare admit—even to ourselves. As the Hon Tony Ryall mentioned the last time this bill was being debated it is not uncommon for folk to experience a season of poor personal mental health. For those who have experienced such an episode the sympathy for those who live with permanent impairment is very real. 
The current inquiry into disability services being conducted by the Social Services Committee has highlighted some particular challenges. Mental health clients if they are to have any sense of self-determination need to have a better say in the kinds of support services that they are able to avail themselves of. Services need to be tailored to the client rather than for the convenience of the provider. One submitter stated that he would like to trade vacuuming and dusting for a trip to the pub with his mates but no vacuuming and dusting is what is on offer. The need for a normal life is often denied by a model of care that is medically rather than socially designed. These issues are the bread-and-butter advocacy work of our commission and United Future happily supports the extension of its work and its role. We are happy to support the second reading.
Vote: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6359] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 49 
Anderton(P) 
Flavell  
Mark  
Tremain(P) 
Borrows 
Foss(P) 
Moroney(P) 
Turia  
Brown(P) 
Gallagher  
Paraone(P) 
Turner(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Peters(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Harawira(P) 
Robertson  
Worth(P) 
Clarkson(P) 
Hayes  
Roy E (P) 
Yates (P) 
Coleman  
Heatley(P) 
Ryall  
Copeland  
Jones(P) 
Samuels  
Cosgrove(P) 
Key(P) 
Sharples  
Cunliffe(P) 
King A 
Smith N (P) 
Donnelly(P) 
King C (P) 
Stewart(P) 
Duynhoven  
Laban(P) 
Swain(P) 
Field(P) 
Mahuta  
te Heuheu(P) 
Teller: 
Finlayson  
Mapp  
Tolley(P) 
Goodhew  
Noes 72 
Ardern(P) 
Collins(P) 
Hide(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Auchinvole  
Connell(P) 
Hobbs  
Roy H (P) 
Barker(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Simich(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Dalziel  
Horomia(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Bennett D 
Dean  
Hutchison  
Street  
Bennett P (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Dyson  
Locke  
Tisch  
Beyer(P) 
English(P) 
Mackey  
Tizard(P) 
Blue  
Fairbrother(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Turei  
Blumsky  
Fenton(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Wagner  
Bradford(P) 
Fitzsimons  
McCully(P) 
Wilkinson(P) 
Brash(P) 
Goff(P) 
O’Connor  
Williamson  
Brownlee(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Burton(P) 
Groser  
Parker  
Wong(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Guy  
Peachey(P) 
Carter D 
Hartley  
Pettis  
Chadwick  
Hawkins(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Chauvel  
Henare(P) 
Power  
Teller: 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Rich(P) 
Hughes  
Motion not agreed to.
Donnelly Brian: Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6317] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 It is pretty obvious that the House unanimously supports the very sensible provisions of the Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill. After all if there had been any opposition leave would not have been given for the second and third readings to be taken as one. 
The promoter of the bill Steve Chadwick and also Lindsay Tisch have together adequately explained the purpose of the bill and there is no real need to traverse that territory. However I take the opportunity to say I am particularly pleased to help constructively through this bill the people of Rotorua. My parents saw out their final years in Rotorua—at Lake Okareka—and I have to say that those were the happiest years of their lives. During that time my own family with my young children spent a lot of time in Rotorua and I have a particular affection for the place. Therefore it is extremely gratifying to express New Zealand First’s full support for this bill.
Burton Mark: Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Burton Mark: Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6316] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I make a brief call in support of my colleague Steve Chadwick. The Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill is a really good example of a local bill where we see the generosity of a now deceased resident of the district being honoured and respected. We also see a typical example of the dedication and commitment of a constituency member of Parliament who even 74 years after the death of her constituent is still in there battling for her and making sure that her wishes are honoured. 
This bill will ensure that the original intention is honoured. I have to say of course that for the good people of Rotorua the freeing-up of this revenue will ensure that the Rotorua Public Library can be enhanced for the benefit of all local people. I congratulate Steve Chadwick for yet again advancing the interests and causes of her constituents and her community.
Tisch Lindsay: Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6316] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National members are very pleased to support the Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill. A fine legacy was left way back on 30 December 1932 by this lady that Steve Chadwick as the sponsor of this bill mentioned—Elizabeth Ann Seddon-Johnson of Rotorua. Since probate was granted in September 1936 the borough council—as it was called then—and now the district council of the city and the area have had access to the endowment that was gifted way back then by the generosity of this lady. 
Unfortunately this bill is necessary because the income that came from the endowment can only be used for general maintenance purposes and for the purchase of books periodicals and the sorts of reading materials that people would be interested in. That has tied up the capital so that the district council has been able to use only the income from the source. Steve Chadwick made points about the wishes of the district council and the residents of the area to be able to expand the operation and that is going to require some capital to do. It is consistent with the original intention of Elizabeth Seddon-Johnson. 
The explanatory note makes the point that in her will she “provided that the residue of her estate should be applied for or towards the erection of a new wing to the Rotorua Public Library.” That is not the council’s intent; its intent is to expand and modernise the operation which of course is capital work and has been excluded prior to this. It has not been possible before to use the capital of this endowment for what the area requires. 
Therefore by supporting this bill and by allowing the district council to be able to look specifically not only at the income but also at the capital and to put it towards the expansion of this public library we will support a worthy cause. I am sure the district is indebted to the generosity and the legacy that was left way back in 1936. National has much pleasure in supporting this bill.
Chadwick Steve: Business of the House 
Chadwick Steve: Business of the House 
[Volume:635;Page:6314] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I seek leave for the debate on the question that the Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill be read a second and third time to be taken as a single debate of twelve 10-minute speeches. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Party and Member Support—Ministerial Responsibility 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Party and Member Support—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:635;Page:6285] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. Yes the member is fully aware of that. It is a matter to be raised at the Parliamentary Service Commission whose next meeting will be held next Wednesday.
English Bill: Personal Explanations — Question No. 5 to Minister 
English Bill: Personal Explanations — Question No. 5 to Minister 
[Volume:635;Page:6305] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 During question time I referred to the school at Clydevale. There is some confusion—and the media are very interested in the story. The name of the school is the Clutha Valley School and it is at Clydevale. I want to clear that up because in question time I gave the impression that the school is called the Clydevale School. It is actually called the Clutha Valley School.
Cullen Michael: Responses — David J McLean on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren of New Zealand—Statements by Jill Pettis and Hon Phil Goff MPs 
Cullen Michael: Responses — David J McLean on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren of New Zealand—Statements by Jill Pettis and Hon Phil Goff MPs 
[Volume:635;Page:6287] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That those papers be published 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Party and Member Support—Ministerial Responsibility 
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Party and Member Support—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:635;Page:6285] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The Standing Orders are quite clear: oral questions whether by way of point of order or in another form cannot be put to the Speaker in relation to the Parliamentary Service. Only written questions can be put in that way.
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Party and Member Support—Ministerial Responsibility 
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Party and Member Support—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:635;Page:6285] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Brownlee; please be seated. I gave the ruling on a supplementary question. The ruling was that a staff member may have different roles; that is what I have said in my ruling. What I have attempted to do in today’s ruling is explain in more detail than there was the opportunity to do at that time. May I suggest to you that you consider the ruling. I am happy to hear any comments you wish to make after you have had an opportunity to consider it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Given that we have a ruling that arose from a particular situation I accept that you have said that in your consideration of the  
Hansard  
your earlier ruling was consistent with the new ruling that you have brought in. But the simple question is whether in your opinion the question—in hindsight—was within the scope of the Standing Orders or outside it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. It was consistent with the ruling and as I have said on supplementary questions it is not for me to judge. The Prime Minister in responding said it was not within her ministerial responsibility and that is exactly the position I have taken in the ruling. On supplementary questions that response is perfectly proper because I cannot always judge what staff are doing—neither could any Speaker. It is for the Minister of course—that is consistent with the Standing Orders—to challenge whether there is any ministerial responsibility. That is precisely what I did at the time and I have now given you a rather full explanation as to why.
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Party and Member Support—Ministerial Responsibility 
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Party and Member Support—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:635;Page:6284] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Thank you for that ruling. We will most certainly read it given the length of it. But most immediately a question comes to mind. I ask you Madam Speaker whether you have looked back at the  
Hansard  
record to see whether in your view—related to your new ruling—the question that was asked on that particular day to the Prime Minister would have met the test that you will now apply. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. Yes I did look at it and explicitly it did. Thank you. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: What was the result? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The result was it was consistent with my ruling.
Hobbs Marian: Motions — Cluster Munitions 
Hobbs Marian: Motions — Cluster Munitions 
[Volume:635;Page:6283] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That this House— 
acknowledge the unacceptable toll on civilian lives caused by cluster munitions and the lasting legacy of these weapons in postwar situations; 
denounce the indiscriminate use of cluster munitions and their use in areas where civilians are likely to suffer disproportionate casualties 
and call upon the international community to set binding standards of reliability to decrease the persistent threat to civilians caused by unexploded bomblets; 
confirm that New Zealand does not currently maintain stocks of cluster munitions has no intention to do so in the future does not intend to produce develop or export these weapons and urges its coalition partners to use such weapons only in accordance with the principles of the law of armed conflict; 
call for the negotiation of a legally binding instrument to address the humanitarian concerns posed by cluster munitions; 
support ratification of Protocol V of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons on Explosive Remnants of War dated 28 November 2003; 
welcome the protocol’s entry into force which will occur on 12 November 2006 as an important step towards addressing the humanitarian consequences of unexploded remnants of war; 
urge maximum possible support to clear cluster munitions in post-conflict situations and call for civilian populations to be educated about the risks associated with cluster munitions; 
and support research into the impact of cluster munitions on civilians. 
Motion agreed to.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:635;Page:6314] 
Business of the House 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I seek leave for the debate on the question that the Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill be read a second and third time to be taken as a single debate of twelve 10-minute speeches. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Personal Explanations — Question No. 5 to Minister 
Personal Explanations — Question No. 5 to Minister 
[Volume:635;Page:6305] 
Personal Explanations 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 During question time I referred to the school at Clydevale. There is some confusion—and the media are very interested in the story. The name of the school is the Clutha Valley School and it is at Clydevale. I want to clear that up because in question time I gave the impression that the school is called the Clydevale School. It is actually called the Clutha Valley School.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Party and Member Support—Ministerial Responsibility 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Party and Member Support—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:635;Page:6286] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If in fact the response indicates that the Minister is not responsible in a ministerial capacity and that the matter comes under the Parliamentary Service vote yes then the matter stops at that point. 
[The following response was wrongly omitted.]
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Party and Member Support—Ministerial Responsibility 
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Party and Member Support—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:635;Page:6285] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As the Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service and therefore for the very considerable amount of funds that the Parliamentary Service has available to it are you comfortable that someone who is not employed by the Parliamentary Service apparently has full control of the Labour Parliamentary Service fund?
Visitors — Turkey—Grand National Assembly of Turkey 
Visitors — Turkey—Grand National Assembly of Turkey 
[Volume:635;Page:6283] 
Wednesday 8 November 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Turkey—Grand National Assembly of Turkey 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Grand National Assembly of Turkey led by Professor Dr Aziz Akgul chair of the Turkey - New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Motions — Cluster Munitions 
Motions — Cluster Munitions 
[Volume:635;Page:6283] 
Motions 
Cluster Munitions 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That this House— 
acknowledge the unacceptable toll on civilian lives caused by cluster munitions and the lasting legacy of these weapons in postwar situations; 
denounce the indiscriminate use of cluster munitions and their use in areas where civilians are likely to suffer disproportionate casualties 
and call upon the international community to set binding standards of reliability to decrease the persistent threat to civilians caused by unexploded bomblets; 
confirm that New Zealand does not currently maintain stocks of cluster munitions has no intention to do so in the future does not intend to produce develop or export these weapons and urges its coalition partners to use such weapons only in accordance with the principles of the law of armed conflict; 
call for the negotiation of a legally binding instrument to address the humanitarian concerns posed by cluster munitions; 
support ratification of Protocol V of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons on Explosive Remnants of War dated 28 November 2003; 
welcome the protocol’s entry into force which will occur on 12 November 2006 as an important step towards addressing the humanitarian consequences of unexploded remnants of war; 
urge maximum possible support to clear cluster munitions in post-conflict situations and call for civilian populations to be educated about the risks associated with cluster munitions; 
and support research into the impact of cluster munitions on civilians. 
Motion agreed to.
Responses — David J McLean on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren of New Zealand—Statements by Jill Pettis and Hon Phil Goff MPs 
Responses — David J McLean on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren of New Zealand—Statements by Jill Pettis and Hon Phil Goff MPs 
[Volume:635;Page:6287] 
Responses 
David J McLean on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren of New Zealand—Statements by Jill Pettis and Hon Phil Goff MPs 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a Response under Standing Orders 160 to 163 on the applications of Mr David J McLean on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren of New Zealand relating to statements made by Jill Pettis on 24 May 2006 and the Hon Phil Goff on 14 June and 6 September 2006. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That those papers be published 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of  Parliament) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of  Parliament) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6333] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 9 
New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6292] 
4.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What reports if any has she received on the uptake of paid parental leave? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have seen a report showing that in this September quarter $25.5 million was paid to almost 6000 new parents. This brings the total paid parental leave payments to $316 million and the total number of recipients to almost 90000 since our Government introduced the scheme in July 2002. I can report also that in the first 3 months of the scheme being open to the self-employed 403 applications were approved. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has she received any further reports on the paid parental leave scheme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Actually I have. I have seen an extraordinary report that the Hon Dr Nick Smith is referring the scheme to the Human Rights Commission because it does not cover some seasonal workers. I acknowledge that issue and assure the House that it will be included in the extensive review of the scheme that is already under way. But I would note the irony; the same member of Parliament who for 5 years has opposed this scheme and thus denied its benefits to all parents has suddenly become its most strident supporter.
Smith Lockwood: Responses — David J McLean on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren of New Zealand—Statements by Jill Pettis and Hon Phil Goff MPs 
Smith Lockwood: Responses — David J McLean on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren of New Zealand—Statements by Jill Pettis and Hon Phil Goff MPs 
[Volume:635;Page:6287] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a Response under Standing Orders 160 to 163 on the applications of Mr David J McLean on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren of New Zealand relating to statements made by Jill Pettis on 24 May 2006 and the Hon Phil Goff on 14 June and 6 September 2006.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6298] 
11.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What initiatives is the Government considering to assist consumers to choose more energy-efficient vehicles? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The Government yesterday released a proposal to provide vehicle fuel economy information at point of sale for both new and used vehicles. This will give New Zealanders information they need when purchasing a car. It builds on the fuelsaver website launched earlier this year. This Government-managed website provides fuel efficiency information for new and most second-hand vehicles. With vehicle labelling at point of sale people will choose more fuel-efficient cars. This will not only save them money every week at the petrol pump; it will reduce particulate emissions which are harmful to human health and it will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Are there concerns about how accurate the vehicle fuel economy information at point of sale will be? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In practice we cannot test every vehicle every time it is sold. The best information at present available is the international data produced for the vehicle model when it was made. As vehicles age their relative fuel efficiency compared with other similar vehicle choices will still be valid. It is good to provide energy efficiency information for washing machines and for dishwashers for TVs and for fridges but it is certainly more important to do it for cars. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the list of ministerial self-drive cars so that the public might see the choice of gas guzzlers that this Government committed to zero carbons is driving. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6290] 
2.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What recent announcements has she made with respect to roading in the Waikato region? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced the start of the construction of the Mangatawhiri deviation on State Highway 2. In July I attended the completion of the Mercer to Longswamp expressway project on State Highway 1. Both projects are priorities for the Waikato region as they provide safety and economic benefits. Both of these highways were considered safety black spots in terms of road deaths and injury. The value of large State highway constructed safety projects has more than doubled since we became the Government because we do take the safety of New Zealanders seriously. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Minister seen any criticism of the Mangatawhiri deviation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. I saw a report in the  
Waikato Times 
 in which the local member of Parliament Dr Paul Hutchison criticised the design and funding for the deviation. I do not know who he has been talking to. The Mayor of Franklin District Council Mark Ball and the local people I received feedback from yesterday are delighted with this $46 billion project. I was informed that a request was made for this deviation back in the 1990s but no action was taken. 
David Bennett 
: Can the Minister explain why the Government has put money ahead of lives in consistently delaying the Mangatawhiri deviation then re-tendering the project then redesigning the project when in the Transit plan of 2003 it had a completion date of June next year and while five people have died on that road; and how many more can be expected to die while construction is completed? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: What New Zealanders recognise is cant from the member opposite. There was an opportunity to fix that deviation in the 1990s. No notice was taken of that opportunity and lives have been lost on that road for years. The deviation will be undertaken. I have turned the first sod $46 million is going into it and it will be completed on time and on budget.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6297] 
9.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What is the Government doing to assist with the protection of Lake Taupo’s water quality? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am sure all members will be only too aware of the iconic nature of Lake Taupo and the great significance of that lake to New Zealanders and to international visitors. I am pleased to inform the House that the Labour-led Government has committed $36.7 million towards the $81.5 million fund to protect the lake’s water quality. We have also approved the Lake Taupo Protection Trust as the administrator of that fund. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Why has the Government committed substantial funding to the protection of Lake Taupo’s water quality? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Water is clearly one of our most valued natural assets and at the heart of environmental sustainability. This philosophy is clearly expressed in the Government’s Sustainable Water Programme of Action. We are committing the $36.7 million towards protecting the water quality in Lake Taupo in order to reverse the increased concentrations of nitrogen leaching into it from the surrounding land resulting in increased algal growth and decreased water clarity. We expect the project to achieve a 20 percent reduction in the nitrogen entering the lake over the next 15 years. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: How much privately owned land is it anticipated that the Crown or local body agencies will need to purchase in order to attain the goals set down for water quality in Lake Taupo? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: That will be a matter for the protection trust to determine.
Dunne Peter: Speaker’s Rulings — Party and Member Support—Ministerial Responsibility 
Dunne Peter: Speaker’s Rulings — Party and Member Support—Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:635;Page:6285] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I appreciate that you have given a very detailed ruling and we have not all had a chance to study it carefully yet but I seek a point of clarification relating to your comments regarding Speaker’s ruling 141/3 which was made by Mr Speaker Burke in respect of Ministers and their relationship to State-owned enterprises. You indicated in the text of your ruling that a Minister had the responsibility to challenge the validity of any charge made. Can I seek from you Madam Speaker some guidance as to what you envisaged would happen if a question was posed regarding the activities of a staff member who was not an employee of Ministerial Services and the Minister then responded by saying that it was not actually within his or her responsibility because that person did not work for Ministerial Services. Does your ruling mean that at that point the House is obliged to accept the validity of that answer and subject it to challenge through the normal ways or is there to be a further process of scrutiny to determine whether in fact that answer applies? I suspect that the circumstances behind Speaker’s ruling 141/3 in its application to State-owned enterprises were a little different from the circumstances of the ruling you have given.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Turkey—Grand National Assembly of Turkey 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Turkey—Grand National Assembly of Turkey 
[Volume:635;Page:6283] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Grand National Assembly of Turkey led by Professor Dr Aziz Akgul chair of the Turkey - New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14462] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14462] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment as amended agreed to.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14462] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to insert a new crossheading and new clause 28AA as amended be agreed to.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14461] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to clause 24(3) be agreed to.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14460] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to clause 23B be agreed to.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14460] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lynne Pillay to clause 23A(3)(b) be agreed to: 
to omit “identity” and substitute “identify”.
Fenton Darien: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14454] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mahuta Nanaia: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14451] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Having listened to that speech I feel compelled to make just a brief contribution with regard to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I do understand that there is a lot of support to see the Waitakere Ranges protected and certainly from my visit and discussions with the council that view was very strong reflected. 
I commend Lynne Pillay and the members of the committee for their stewardship in moving this bill though. It has taken some time to work up a bill that we can all consider. I also commend the Maori Party for working constructively with the local member to ensure that we get a bill that will accommodate many of the needs in the area. 
With regard to the amendments proposed by Dr Sharples I want to put in context the amendment that I propose to include with the support of the Maori Party to ensure there is no misunderstanding about the intent. It is very clear that the intention of the Maori Party here is that Ngati Whatua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki are consulted with regard to developments in the area. My provision in particular is to ensure that private landowners will not be affected. In fact the consultation provisions specifically refer to Crown and local authority lands. 
The amendment is for the purpose of clarification. It does not take away any obligation to ensure that Ngati Whatua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki are consulted and rightly so. It is to ensure that the issues raised by Mr Dail Jones are more accurately put into some context because these provisions will not affect the private landowner who wants to build a garage on his or her land. However they will affect happenings on Crown land and local authority land. So I think many of the issues raised by Mr Jones are him scaremongering a bit and are not helpful to the purposes of the consideration here today. 
That is the nature of the amendment I am proposing. It will be in addition to the Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled by Dr Pita Sharples and I hope that with the support of members in this Chamber it will proceed favourably.
Robertson H V Ross: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14443] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The debate on this part also includes debate on schedules 1 2 and 3.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14443] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Jones Dail: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14443] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
:  
I will not take too long because my voice is going on me. On behalf of New Zealand First I am here to defend the property-owning people of west Auckland including the Maori people of west Auckland who are not being supported by the Maori Party in the Chamber tonight. 
The interesting point I wish to raise from the purpose clause concerns the division in the community. This clause to some extent also highlights the division in the viewpoint on this bill between the Waitakere City Council and the Rodney District Council. If we look at schedule 1 at the back of the bill we will see a map. It is only in the area covered by the Waitakere City Council that private owners are affected by this bill. In the Rodney District Council they are smart. It is only the Waitakere Ranges park area that is included. No private land in the Rodney District Council area is included at all. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: An attack on property rights. 
DAIL JONES 
: The Rodney District Council will not permit an attack on property rights because of the sound views of the council but of course the Waitakere City Council has no hesitation in attacking property rights. So to say there is no division in the areas is totally wrong. Even the councils are divided in their viewpoint on this bill. The Rodney District Council is in the bill only because some of its land is in the Waitakere Ranges park area and therefore it supports the concept of the park being protected as we all do. Everyone supports the protection of the park which is owned by the public and there is no way anyone can possibly damage the park because we the members of the public who are all ratepayers of the Auckland Regional Council area own the 17000 hectares of the park and nothing can be done to damage that. 
I just wanted to raise that one point in the time that is available with my voice as it is and to say that there is division on this bill even at local authority level. If we have so much division why on earth should we support this bill? New Zealand First will be opposing it.
Fenton Darien: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14434] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I want to take just a short call to put on the record my support for Part 1of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. Unlike most members of this House I actually live in this area in the foothills of Waitakere. I have lived there for 20 years. My child went to school there. My family have grown up there. The people in my street are not rich people. They are ordinary New Zealanders who like me have chosen to live in an area that is special and has cultural historical and ecological importance. 
This area is important to all New Zealanders. I can confirm absolutely being in touch with my neighbours and having been at the meetings and other things that this bill reflects the desire of the people of my community to ensure that the magnificent Waitakere Ranges are kept for the enjoyment of future generations. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: How is the National waka burning? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. May I say that I live at the working-class end of the Waitakere Ranges so I am not one of the people who have high-value very expensive properties that they might want to develop and sell for megabucks. Where I live is a wonderful area and there has been a wonderful opportunity for my neighbours and me to grow up in this area near the wonderful Te Henga/Bethells Beach where people have lived for a long long time—for 1000 years. The nearby village is Swanson. 
If people have any doubt about the importance of this bill they should go along to Swanson Road and look at the scar on the landscape caused by one developer locally. It has taken years and years and years to mend. The developer not only scarred the landscape but also polluted the waterways and put ordinary ratepayers like me to a whole lot of extra effort and money. People have had to get out and clean that pollution up. One developer thought that he or she had the right to go and screw up the landscape. 
I just want to say that I live in the Waitakere Ranges. I live in the foothills I treasure them and they are precious not only to my family and me but to my community and all of our country. 
Sue Moroney 
: They want to subdivide the Waitakere Ranges. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I know they want to subdivide them. 
David Benson-Pope 
: They want private developers to subdivide them. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well that is right; they want to allow developers to make huge amounts of money. I do not support that. 
My neighbours and my community do not support what the National Party wants to do. We support this bill.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14437] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the preamble be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Preamble agreed to.
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14437] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Dyson Ruth: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister 
Dyson Ruth: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister 
[Volume:675;Page:14422] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I will make a small correction to the answer I gave to question No. 11 this afternoon. I described the woman whom I used as an example in my answer as being in receipt of an invalids benefit; in fact it was a sickness benefit.
Jones Shane: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Jones Shane: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14456] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I am going to call Dail Jones because he has two amendments and he sticks very closely to Part 2.
Hughes Darren: Tabling of Documents — Work and Income Rules for Advances to Beneficiaries 
Hughes Darren: Tabling of Documents — Work and Income Rules for Advances to Beneficiaries 
[Volume:675;Page:14398] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the Work and Income rules for advances to beneficiaries drawn up by the former deputy leader of John Key’s party the Hon Roger Sowry. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.