edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Paraone Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Paraone Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3906] 
12.  
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What advice if any has he received regarding Maori satisfaction with the current time frame for Treaty of Waitangi settlements? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I am aware that more groups than ever have chosen to enter negotiations with the Crown. This indicates to me that Maori are as committed and determined as the Crown to resolve historical Treaty of Waitangi grievances by 2020. 
Pita Paraone 
: Can the Minister confirm that by setting an explicit date for lodging historical claims as contained in the Maori Purposes Bill a greater sense of urgency and focus has been brought to the Treaty settlement process? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is certainly the case that this Government is committed to further accelerating the Treaty settlement process and that the provision of a final lodging date in the Maori Purposes Bill is part of ensuring that. It gives I think a legitimate opportunity for those with a grievance to lodge a claim. It also indicates to New Zealanders that an end point is in sight. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he confirm that after inflation the Government’s so-called new initiative funding for Vote Treaty Negotiations in this year’s Budget sees funding fall by some $482000 and is this confirmation that the Labour Government has a go-slow approach to Treaty settlements? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can confirm that in addition to additions in the provision for the Office of Treaty Settlements in 3 of the last 4 years increasing its negotiation research and legal capabilities the provision for the next 4 years contained in this year’s Budget will increase its negotiation capability overall and that indeed people are being recruited and interviewed as we speak. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. What would the Minister say to the runanga currently in negotiation with the Crown who wrote to the Maori Party this morning stating: “We do not look on the settlement process as providing us justice. Recent performance in relation to Maori issues has shown that the compromises that result are not in the interests of Maori.”? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I would say that I and the Crown enter into good-faith negotiations directly with parties not through the media and certainly not through second-hand correspondence. 
Pita Paraone 
: Will the Minister ensure that the Office of Treaty Settlements is sufficiently resourced to meet the increased demand that will inevitably occur with an explicit final date for lodging claims? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I have indicated in answer to an earlier supplementary question as with my predecessors I am committed to ensuring that the Office of Treaty Settlements has the resources necessary to ensure that the target dates are met and we are on track to achieving that.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3905] 
10.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress is being made towards removing asset testing for New Zealanders who need long-term residential care? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 On 1 July the Labour-led Government will invest $14.3 million to continue the phase-out of income and asset testing for aged residential care. This is on top of our initial investment of $93 million last year. Some thresholds will rise to $160000 up from as low as $15000 this time last year. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can the Minister tell the House why the Labour-led Government has committed to the phasing out of asset testing for residential care? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: This policy is about fairness. Older New Zealanders who have built up assets throughout their lives should not be unduly penalised when they need to go into residential care. National’s changes to asset testing in the 1990s were so harsh that people in rest homes could not afford to pay for their own funerals. Labour thinks older New Zealanders deserve better than that.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3896] 
2.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on economic growth in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I received a report in January of a prediction that New Zealand was “almost certainly headed for recession”—that is the March quarter figure would be negative. The actual out-turn for the March quarter was growth of 0.7 percent which is just below the assumed long-term sustainable rate of growth despite Dr Brash’s attempts to talk it down. 
Shane Jones 
: Has he seen any reports on the link between business confidence and economic growth? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports suggesting that the misguided prediction of a recession was based on assumptions around business confidence. But those too have been proven wrong with two recent reports showing business confidence coming off the very low base of late last year in both Auckland and Wellington. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What would have happened had the Minister put in place an across-the-board tax cut as proposed by the National Party? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In the short term there would have been much further pressure upon demand and therefore on the current account deficit and therefore a credit rating downgrade which the former Reserve Bank governor would have died to avoid when he was in that position. 
John Key 
: Has the Minister seen the report from Westpac which states that the rebound in first-quarter GDP growth is something of a false dawn and should not be read as an underlying recovery that trend growth in GDP is only 1 percent a year and that that trend rate is likely to persist or even weaken further through 2006 and 2007 as the fundamental drivers of slower growth remain in place? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes but I did not need to see that because I said exactly the same thing myself in response to the quarterly figure. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the growth assumptions underlying Treasury’s statement on New Zealand’s long-term fiscal position take adequate account of the economic consequences of accelerated climate change ecological collapse of the oceans loss of productive soils and pollution and depletion of fresh waters—none of which are priced or recognised in current markets? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I am satisfied that a number of those factors have been taken into account. Although some of them I think are slightly less serious than the member implies with that somewhat catastrophic scenario over a 50-year time frame we look forward to working with a united Green Party on those issues.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Obituaries — Dorothy Huhana (Bubbles) Mihinui 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Obituaries — Dorothy Huhana (Bubbles) Mihinui 
[Volume:632;Page:3895] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe. Tena tatou katoa. I move 
 That this House expresses its deep sadness at the recent death of Dorothy Huhana (Bubbles) Mihinui who gave 70 years of service to Maori tourism and the community in Rotorua in her role as a guide at the historic Whakarewarewa Village and express its sincere condolences to Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao and Ngaiterangi who are feeling a profound sense of loss and sorrow at this time. Kia ora t 
atou. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Human Rights (One Law For All) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Human Rights (One Law For All) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4056] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Human Rights (One Law For All) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Maori Party 2; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Turner Judy: Human Rights (One Law For All) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Human Rights (One Law For All) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4050] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take just a quick call to say that United Future will not be supporting this bill. 
I want to reflect quickly on two things. Firstly I am interested that Mr Hide and the National Party have both scoffed regularly at the issue of political correctness—with the National Party setting up a PC eradicator in response to its concerns—yet this bill is the kind of stuff that political correctness is made out of. Mr Hide is saying that we can talk about need in a general sense and say that we have needs that need addressing but we cannot ever quantify them or define those needs in a way that is helpful so that assistance can be targeted to them. I think we would start engaging in politically correct verbal games in the House where we can talk in vague terms about the needs that are apparent in the community without ever getting down to specifics. 
It is very clear that when we look at the realities of effective endeavours that meet needs we discover that what works well is funding those who are best able to make the best approach to best communicate and to best deliver those services. We see it when we fund the gay community to take messages of safe sex to their community. We see it when we target contracts to Maori health providers to provide health services to Maori people. We understood when we were in jeopardy of losing a key language to this nation that we needed to put resourcing towards that very specifically. On and on I could go. 
This bill is all about political correctness and I cannot believe those two parties are engaging in it.
Hide Rodney: Human Rights (One Law For All) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Human Rights (One Law For All) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4046] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I was going to do that at the end of this debate but I am quite happy to do so now. I was going to move that it be sent it to the only committee that has every party on it: the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you.
Vote: Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4029] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 20 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 99 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Kedgley Sue: Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill — First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4029] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a postcard from Fenja Jones in Nelson who as a consumer says: “I want to know which country my food comes from whether it contains GE ingredients and whether eggs have come from hens that have been kept in cages.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member how many documents she is going to table. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I have several hundred here to table but I will just table one more specifically here— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I say to the member that to do that would be an abuse of the process of the House. This is members’ night your bill has been debated and other members are entitled to— 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I said I wanted to table one more. I do not think that is an abuse of the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: One more? Well it would be if there were 200 to 300. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: No no. I said I will be tabling 200 to 300 and I would specifically table one more. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: But not individually? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: No that is right. I am sorry; I did not make myself clear. I would like to table a card from Mr Wells who says: “As a consumer I want to know: whether my food contains GE ingredients or not whether eggs have come from hens that have been kept in cages and which country my food comes from” and he continues: “because better labelling means more informed choices.” 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Finally I would like to table these several hundred postcards from consumers all of whom say they believe that it is the basic right of individuals to have informed choice about the food they are going to purchase. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hartley Ann: Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4029] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Before the dinner break we were just about to vote on the Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill. The debate had finished.
Turner Judy: Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4026] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to say that we will support the first reading of the Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill although we do so with some serious reservations. Sue Kedgley has been a very strong and passionate advocate for this issue during the whole time I have known her here in Parliament. I also know that a lot of other people are really keen to see how viable it is to have information around GM foods and the discussion should be had. However one concern we do have is how realistic it is. 
I was talking to somebody the other day who advocates for the food industry. He was in my office about quite a different matter but I asked for his input. One of the examples he gave me was of a company he knows that packages sun-dried tomatoes. The product was imported from somewhere in South America although I cannot remember which country he told me it was. He said that the problem the company had was that if there was a drought or the climate was unfavourable it would need to source the product from somewhere else to continue to supply its markets and at that point for the company having registered its product the whole system would fall over quite badly in terms of how it would manage the costs. 
I am a reader of labels on the back of products in the supermarket and I appreciate the amount of information I am given. My first response is that I feel I get sufficient information but I think it is a growing thing and that people are becoming more and more interested in picking up something off the shelf and checking the back for a few minutes to see what is in it. So I do not see that there is any harm in having a discussion at a select committee listening to submitters—to those who are involved in the food industry and to consumer groups—and hearing what they have to say. My concern is that it is unrealistic but we may be able to problem-solve around that and find ways forward to learn what made it workable in other countries and what particular concerns there are for our own New Zealand food industry. There are a whole lot of questions that could well be answered very successfully. Compromises could be reached to the benefit of everybody. So United Future is very happy for that discussion to be had and we are happy to support the first reading.
Tisch Lindsay: Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4021] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The folk of Rotorua—Rotorua City and district—are indeed indebted to the generosity of this lady Elizabeth Ann Seddon-Johnson of Rotorua who the explanatory note states “By her will dated 30 December 1932 probate of which was granted on 1 September 1936” left through the Public Trustee “the residue of her estate on trust for the benefit of the Rotorua Borough Council to be used for or towards the erection of a new wing”. The district council which has now taken the place of course of the borough council I am sure is indebted to her and this is a fine legacy for someone whose generosity the whole area appreciates. 
Libraries are important facilities in our community. We have seen instances where libraries have been taken away and only at some later date did people say it was a sad loss. In fact we have a case in Cambridge where that happened in a school and that library has now been put back for the benefit of the students. 
Here is a very generous legacy that has been left from way back in 1936. National has much pleasure in supporting this bill known as the Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.referred to Government Administration Committee
Locke Keith: Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill — First Reading 
Locke Keith: Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4018] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill. I would like to make a few comments on behalf of Sue Bradford who has been the MP following this issue. She spends a lot of time in Rotorua dealing with issues there. I would like to take just a brief call to offer our support for the bill and to extend our best wishes to the Rotorua District Council on its efforts to improve the public library in Haupapa Street. 
The substance of this private bill is fairly technical but significant for those who are involved. It deals with a request from the council that it be allowed to return to the original intentions of a will made in 1932 by a certain Elizabeth Seddon-Johnson probate of which was granted in 1936. This generous donor directed the bulk of her estate to be held in trust for the then Rotorua Borough Council to erect a new wing for the local library. The current unfortunate situation in which the council finds itself seems to have occurred because certain events subsequent to probate being granted meant that the council had lost—if it ever had—the power to apply the capital of endowment to purposes associated with the library despite that being the benefactor’s original intention. 
When faced with issues like this the Green Party has always taken the position that where possible Parliament should abide by the original intention of wills and bequests. From looking at the information available I think there is no doubt that this is in fact what the current Rotorua District Council proposes to do in seeking to use the bulk of this money towards acquiring and appropriately refurbishing another two floors of its current building. For that reason we are supporting the bill to the select committee. 
I would just like to add that I think it is great that the council is moving to expand the library because in a district like Rotorua with a proportionately high number of low-income people it is especially important that public libraries provide as good a service as possible. Libraries are a great leveller offering the opportunity for any child or adult no matter what their income or background to read learn and develop in ways that are not constrained by their immediate economic circumstances. In supporting the council’s intentions with this bill I simply exhort it not only to focus on the library’s physical expansion but also to maintain and improve its acquisitions programme in the years to come. Books not buildings are the heart and soul of any library and I trust that the council will not get its priorities wrong as it moves forward on this project.
Donnelly Brian: Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4018] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I just want to make some preliminary statements. I have a real affection for Rotorua—I holidayed there as a young boy—and that affection was reinforced by the fact that when my parents retired they went from Mangakino to Rotorua. They lived out at Lake Okareka. During that time I was teaching on the East Coast so our family spent a lot of time up there with mum and dad. I must admit I really enjoyed Rotorua and I still enjoy going back there. My parents ended up passing away in Rotorua. All this was in the mid-1980s. Since then Rotorua has increased in size quite considerably and there has been quite considerable development. 
The secret to understanding this bill is to go back to the will of Elizabeth Ann Seddon-Johnson dated 30 December 1932 and its intention. It is quite clear that Elizabeth Ann Seddon-Johnson wanted to enhance the library facilities in Rotorua for the people of that area to enjoy. As a consequence of legislation passed from the time of that will the situation has come about that the capital from the legacy is not able to be used for that purpose. Although the legacy may not be used particularly for the erection of a new wing it certainly will be used for the expansion and enhancement of the library’s facilities. That obviously is what the Rotorua district wants and it seems entirely sensible to release the capital to enable it to be used for that particular purpose and the purpose as explained by Dianne Yates. 
New Zealand First will be supporting the bill. As the previous speaker said there is no controversy over it and we believe we should be able to move it through as quickly as possible. We will be voting for it.
Tremain Chris: Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4015] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to support the third reading of the bill and to echo Marian Hobbs’ comments regarding the bill. As we have discussed its purpose is to expressly authorise Trustees Executors Ltd to transact business with its parent company Sheffield Investments Inc. (NZ) Holdings Ltd which is now Sterling Grace (NZ) Ltd. The bill allows that transaction to take place. In all instances up till now that needed to happen through an Act of Parliament. We are now changing that situation particularly in this bill by introducing regulation and by giving power to the Governor-General to amend by Order in Council the schedule to the principal Act. Quite simply that will allow the process to be speeded up in future transactions. 
We have already talked about the fact that name changes are more prevalent in today’s economy and I think it is important that we introduce legislation that allows us to mirror where the economy is going. We cannot have a situation where bills are redundant or historical. We need to be constantly looking at our legislation and taking such bills out of the system and reducing compliance costs for those companies. I did not talk about that point during the second reading debate but there are significant compliance costs for those types of organisations in even bringing an amendment bill to Parliament and getting name changes through. So there will now be a definite reduction in compliance costs. Off the top of my head I think the cost of bringing this legislation to Parliament and getting the whole procedure through was about $25000. 
We were led to believe by the officials that the compliance costs would be smaller by going through the Order in Council channel. I am yet to be convinced of that but I am told that that is the case. So without further ado I say that this bill is taking trustee legislation forward and we support that. 
Bill read a third time.
Hobbs Marian: Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4014] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill is a private bill promoted by Trustees Executors Ltd to amend the TOWER Trust Limited Act 2002. The bill updates the principal Act to reflect Trustees Executors’ current name and ownership structure and importantly allows Trustees Executors’ future parent companies to be named in the principal Act by Order in Council. As previously noted the Commerce Committee has unanimously endorsed the bill and has made only minor drafting amendments. Trustees Executors agrees with the committee’s conclusions. 
Once again I take the opportunity to thank the Commerce Committee and its members for their thoughtful consideration of the bill. They were not easily persuaded at the beginning and the bill really did need that kind of consideration. I take it from the three members who have spoken that there were pros and cons to the process that was set in place but I think we have come to an almost midway point that still allows for some parliamentary control through Order in Council. I commend the bill to the House.
Hobbs Marian: Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4014] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I seek leave from the House to move directly to the third reading of this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to that leave? There is not.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4014] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. I will take a very brief call on the Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill. The Maori Party supports the bill for its purpose of tidying up the technical aspects of legislation and hopefully avoiding the need for yet another retrospective omnibus bill to be introduced at a later point. We think it is a thoroughly sensible idea to correct the preamble to the bill in order to recognise that the current owner of the company has changed its name from Sheffield Investments Inc. (NZ) Holdings Ltd to Sterling Grace (NZ) Ltd. 
The recommendations from the Commerce Committee as I understood them make sense. Sterling Grace (NZ) Ltd is the current owner of the company which the bill recognises. The mechanism also removes the need for parliamentary approval of a new parent company should Trustees Executors Ltd be sold. We are happy to support that change because we recognise that the procedure will still allow appropriate scrutiny of future parent companies before transactions with them are authorised. 
We have some familiarity with the concept of parent companies and trustees through our experiences with what are called whanau trusts. In the whanau trust the rights of individual owners are submerged beneath the trustees’ powers to manage the property and to select suitable beneficiaries of the profits gained from the land. 
A very interesting part of the bill concerns future-proofing with an Order in Council mechanism so that we will not have to relitigate matters in the House. We are very supportive of that sort of notion and we will be behind the bill when the time comes for voting. Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a second time.
Woolerton R Doug: Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4013] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill which is in the name of Marian Hobbs. But in supporting this bill I want to say a couple of things. We always worry a little bit when these sorts of things are in the hands of American corporations but by and large trustees in New Zealand have done a marvellous job in many areas of business and people give of their time and effort to them. 
I know that this bill provides that charges can be made and the head company can receive some remuneration and for that reason we support the fact that Parliament continues to keep some oversight of those sorts of organisations. It is always particularly necessary to do so because those kinds of organisations are less public if I may say so than some others that we see listed on the stock exchange and so on and so forth and their tentacles reach into so many corners of our economy. 
There was concern as we went through the 1980s and early 1990s when we had a bit of a Wild West situation in New Zealand’s economic markets. There are people around now who are saying we are entering a time of some instability. We are seeing financial lending institutions getting into trouble. Nobody is predicting that the end of the world is nigh or anything like that but there are warning signs and in our view it is time for some prudence. 
We are convinced that the Commerce Committee has given this bill the once over. I am pleased to hear that Chris Tremain was not immediately wedded to the idea and that he required some undertakings to give his name to the approval. I am pleased that the bill has received that sort of scrutiny. 
I wish we were giving our OK to a New Zealand company—to something that was staying in the hands of all the people in this country. That is not the case but we will have to put up with that fact. Parliament still has overall jurisdiction of these things and that is as it should be. So we support the bill.
Hobbs Marian: Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4011] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I also give notice now that following the second reading I will be seeking leave from the House to move directly to the third reading of the bill. 
This bill is a private bill promoted by Trustees Executors Limited. Trustees Executors was previously known as TOWER Trust Limited. The company was incorporated in 1881 and is New Zealand’s oldest trustee company. Trustees Executors has its own private Act and is a statutory trustee company under the Trustee Companies Act 1967. 
The Commerce Committee has given careful consideration to the bill and recommends that it be passed with only minor drafting amendments. The bill has three objectives: to amend the title of the TOWER Trust Limited Act 2002 to reflect Trustees Executors’ current name; to ensure that the TOWER Trust Limited Act reflects Trustees Executors’ current ownership structure; and most important to allow Trustees Executors to transact trust and estate business with its current and future parent companies and their subsidiaries. 
The bill achieves this last-mentioned objective by adding a mechanism to the principal Act in order to allow Trustees Executors’ future parent companies to be named by Order in Council. Such orders can be made only on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice after consultation with the Minister of Commerce. That sensible business-friendly approach is supported by the committee. As a result Trustees Executors will not need to seek an amendment to the name of its parent company shown in the principal Act should its parent company change. But there remains appropriate scrutiny of each new parent company before Trustees Executors can transact business with it. That scrutiny will ensure that beneficiaries’ interests are preserved. As the committee concludes on page 3 of its report: “We are satisfied that there are sufficient protections in trust law to protect the interests of beneficiaries. We consider that the Government scrutiny entailed in the regulation-making process may also be beneficial.” 
In conclusion Trustees Executors has advised me that it supports the committee’s conclusions and endorses the bill as reported back. The bill is a sensible approach to the naming of parent companies in the future which in no way will affect the protections for beneficiaries. I commend the committee’s report to the House and in doing so I want to thank the Commerce Committee and the House for their cooperation and work on this matter.
Vote: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4011] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 0 
Maori Party 2. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2. 
Report adopted.
Robertson H V Ross: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4011] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted.
Vote: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4010] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 5 and the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 0 
Maori Party 2. 
Abstentions 2 
Maori Party 2. 
Clauses 1 to 5 and schedules agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4010] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can you give me some clarification in terms of the Maori Party and the vote being taken as to how we declare an abstention vote? Is it appropriate that we answer with a “No” or do we ask for a party vote at the end of the vote? I ask for that clarification please. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The vote can be carried on the voices but there is provision for the member’s party to abstain if it wants. In other words the vote is carried and that is it or the member can if he so wishes record an abstention—which is a party vote. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a point of clarification. In recording a vote do we do it after the vote has been carried or do we call out “No” then have the vote recorded as an abstention? Could you just give us the process for clarification? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If you want the vote to be recorded when I put the question you say “Party vote called for” and in that way you will have the opportunity for an abstention.
Tolley Anne: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4010] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I wish to thank members for their contribution and I refer particularly to what my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell has just raised in respect of the discussion around this bill. As I said earlier I can assure him that the mayor of the Gisborne District Council is seeking a meeting with Rongowhakaata but that is not to impede the passage of this bill. My instructions from the council are that the bill is still to proceed through. If it is passed through the Committee stage today it will come up for its third reading on the next members’ day. I thank all those members of the Local Government and Environment Committee who worked on this bill. It is a simple bill but often simple bills are the most tricky ones. Working our way through the Reserves Act took some doing so I thank them for their attention and for their support of this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question that clauses 1 to 5 and the schedule be agreed to.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4009] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. I thank the members who have spoken just before me in order to provide some clarification. I cannot comment on what happened before I came into the House; all I know is what is ahead of me right now. 
The issue of consultation is something that affects all Maori and we have a concern in the sense that the historical context tells us there are all sorts of consultations. Sometimes though consultation does not allow Maori to fully express their views and points of view. In fact sometimes it does not even involve them. Thus there is a concern. All we are asking is for the bill to be taken back to get sign-off. I do not know whether Rongowhakaata agrees or disagrees with the bill but the issue we are raising is that we should have the korero. We should have the korero and bring the sign-off back to the House so that we can be convinced as the party that defends the rights and advances the interests of Maori people in the best interests of the nation we can say yes we did our part. 
That is really the main issue here. Whether members of the Maori Party are or are not on the council and whether there was a liaison officer or whatever else there was are really secondary issues. At the end of the day we are asking for the discussion to take place—that Rongowhakaata can advise us that the discussion has taken place and that they are happy with it. We will certainly move towards supporting any initiative that allows our people to move forward in a positive manner. I will not talk about any select committee process because I was not involved in it. But I do want to make the point that as a small party—as other smaller parties will know—we cannot cover all of the ground or every issue that comes up in this Parliament. All we can do is to respond to the matters that happen to arrive on our table and that is what we are doing today. 
So that is not to say this is the end of the world or that politically we are doing a grandstanding act. But it does say we will continue to defend the rights of Maori and to ensure that our processes are robust and give Maori the opportunity to respond in a positive or negative manner. That surely is a part of their right.
Donnelly Brian: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4007] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take just a very short call on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Bill because New Zealand First has already indicated that it will support it. We believe that the provision with regard to the use of Alfred Cox Park is common sense and quite important in terms of its usage by the residents of the city of Gisborne. 
We listened with interest to the presentation put forward by the Maori Party at the second reading and again today about the position of Rongowhakaata. I guess that in some respects we are not convinced that this bill has any impact on those rights because all it does is validate something that is already taking place. Therefore although we agree with the Maori Party that there is an issue in that area we certainly do not agree that this legislation will affect those particular rights because of the consultation issues raised by Te Ururoa Flavell. 
New Zealand First will continue to support the bill and hopefully we can get it through as quickly as possible.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4006] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. In the Maori Party’s first opportunity to speak on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill at its second reading we opposed it. Our reason for doing so was in line with our reason for opposing any bill—if we do not believe that it will defend the rights of and advance progress for tangata whenua. We believe that it is in the interests of Aotearoa that each and every development reflects the unique perspectives that come from consultation with tangata whenua. 
Our aspirations for advancing any initiatives will reflect our belief that an appropriate and mandated consultation process has been undertaken in formulating ideas. Consultation is defined by Justice McGechan: “Consultation does not mean negotiation or agreement. It means: setting out a proposal not fully decided upon; adequately informing a party about relevant information upon which the proposal is based; listening to what the others have to say with an open mind (in that there is room to be persuaded against the proposal); undertaking that task in a genuine and not cosmetic manner; reaching a decision that may or may not alter the original proposal.” 
When Dr Sharples spoke in the second reading of the bill he raised the issue of consultation with Rongowhakaata. It was our position as set out in his korero that given that Rongowhakaata had a key interest in the land associated with the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill their voices had to be heard. That was our first opportunity to talk on the bill. The bill’s first reading was on 27 July 2005 when the Maori Party had only one member in Parliament—a member who was not allocated a speaking slot in the debate. So it was disappointing to read that the member sponsoring the bill Anne Tolley was angered by the last minute efforts and supposed political grandstanding but I think we have worked through those issues. I imagine that such anger might be felt in the same way by Rongowhakaata. 
If we are to move forward as a nation we must respect the important perspectives that come from the first-nation people of the land. Rongowhakaata have a significant association and history with the land that is implicated in this bill. It is a history that many others in this Chamber may be unfamiliar with but it is nonetheless part of the history of Aotearoa. 
We will stand up for the right of all Maori to be heard in this Chamber as we do today for Rongowhakaata. We do so in our belief that a prosperous future for Aotearoa will involve us all working together to share our different histories and to focus through our differences on what we can also share together. Kia ora tatou.
Mackey Moana: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4006] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand in the Committee stage of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. As has been said in the first and second readings of this bill it is a relatively straightforward bill but it is very important to the Gisborne community. As has been said before many of the activities carried out in Alfred Cox Park which have been carried out for a very long time have since been deemed to be illegal under the Reserves Act. Those activities include the flea market which is a great drawcard for people in our community the information centre and of course the intercity bus depot. I urge all members to support this bill. This bill will mean that many of the activities that we have always taken for granted in Gisborne will continue to be carried out unabated.
Tolley Anne: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4006] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee for the bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection from any member to the bill being taken as one question? There is none; we will proceed accordingly.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3989] 
9.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How is the Government assisting superannuitants who have a spouse in long-term residential care? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 From 1 July this year all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who live in the community and have a spouse in long-term residential care will be eligible for the higher single rate of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension. This will mean an extra weekly income of up to $60 for as many as 2000 superannuitants and veterans pensioners living in the community who have a spouse in long-term residential care. This is of course another example of a Labour-led Government delivering on its election promises and correcting the injustice and unfairness of the 1990s under a National Government. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What else is the Government doing to ensure fairer and more equitable treatment of older New Zealanders? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: From 1 July this year also the sharing expenses rule which currently prevents some superannuitants from receiving the living alone payment will also be removed. Also from 1 July a person carrying out volunteer work overseas for a recognised aid agency will be eligible for New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension for up to 3 years. Currently the maximum payment period is 1 year. In addition to those improvements from 1 April this year thanks to this Government 494000 older New Zealanders were better off by up to $420 extra a year thanks to increases in the rates of New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does the Minister have any specific plans to improve the fairness of pensions for New Zealand superannuitants who also have overseas pension entitlements? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: That matter as the member is aware is the subject of active discussions with myself and the Minister of Finance. 
Judith Collins 
: Why has it taken 7 years of his Government Mrs Barbara White’s petition and the work of the Hon Dr Nick Smith for his Government finally to take action to fix a situation that was clearly unfair to married couples? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I know that most New Zealanders know how seriously to take statements by or about Dr Smith. But I do know that in 1995—and the member may not be aware of this fact—when National was in Government the then Minister for Senior Citizens Peter Gresham investigated exactly this policy. He even had it costed but typically the National Government failed to do anything about it.