edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 05 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1730. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received about the Prime Minister’s Youth Mental Health Project announced yesterday? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 The addition of more nurses in schools has been welcomed by the Nurses Organisation as an ambulance at the top of the cliff initiative. The Chief Families Commissioner Carl Davidson applauded the initiative saying that $62 million spent wisely should go a long way to providing the support that vulnerable youth need to improve their overall well-being and make a difference in preventing youth suicide. The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman amongst other things said that the origin of these initiatives is an exemplar of how policy formation in complex areas can be based on informed scientific advice. Save the Children New Zealand has also enthusiastically welcomed yesterday’s announcement. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What was the genesis of the Prime Minister’s Youth Mental Health Project and how has it evolved? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: In 2009 the Prime Minister asked Sir Peter Gluckman as his Chief Science Advisor to advise on issues that young people have progressing through adolescence. The  
Improving the Transition 
 report highlighted a number of concerns. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was then asked to lead a cross-Government project to improve existing services and introduce better and more effective initiatives. Officials from the Ministry of Health the Ministry of Education the Ministry of Social Development Te Puni Kokiri and Treasury consulted with the front-line service providers practitioners youth mental health workers principals Whanau Ora providers and others and as a result the comprehensive package that was announced yesterday was developed.
Mallard Trevor: Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Sittings of the House 
[Sitting date: 05 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1725. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to check through you with the Leader of the House whether he is proposing to take leave soon for the House to rise at 5 p.m. I do not think he has yet taken leave to give effect to that Business Committee decision.
Williams Andrew: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williams Andrew: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1766. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 Well I was not expecting to get a call with only about 2 minutes to go before the House rises before the adjournment but I will stand on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill even though we have a matter of only minutes left remaining. This will help New Zealand in terms of its corporates. It will help our companies compete on a global stage. It allows for income that has a source in New Zealand and for which relief from New Zealand tax under double tax agreement is unavailable. This bill serves to help improve New Zealand’s economic performance. It means that New Zealand enterprise is able to operate on a level playing field in markets where we trade and have investments. 
New Zealand First is well known for being the party that has stood up for fairer taxes over many many years with of course the Rt Hon Winston Peters being the most known in this House as being a champion of fair taxes for all exposing the likes of the wine-box situation where people were trying to avoid their taxes and relocate their businesses to other jurisdictions in order to avoid tax. I know we have not got much time left but I need to say that we do support— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but leave has previously been granted for the House to adjourn at 5 p.m. 
Debate interrupted.
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 05 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1725. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to thank the Leader of the House for that and to ask him a little group of questions around one particular bit of legislation and that is the legislation to give effect to the proposed agreement with Skycity Casino. I seek an assurance that it will not be in the next 3-week sitting block that it will not be Budget night legislation that it will not be a confidence vote and that the personal vote that is involved will not be overridden by the National whips—that there will be a conscience vote for all members on it.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 05 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1738. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What initiatives has the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority implemented to help support Christchurch’s Recovery? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has given a greater weighting to Christchurch applications for the authority’s business grant funding managed the initial phase of the chimney replacement programme and worked with the Canterbury sustainable homes working party to facilitate energy-efficiency improvements during house repairs and construction. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What is an example of an initiative to help improve the energy efficiency of homes as they are being repaired? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am pleased to tell the House that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has contributed $150000 to a joint project led by Beacon Pathways that will demonstrate opportunities to improve energy efficiency in homes at a marginal cost during the repair process. It is currently repairing 10 to 15 example quake-damaged homes to a better energy-efficiency standard than the like-for-like repair provided by the Earthquake Commission or insurers. We are hoping people will follow that example.
Brownlee Gerry: Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Sittings of the House 
[Sitting date: 05 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1725. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I had thought that was a Business Committee determination—it was agreed by the Business Committee. But as determined by the Business Committee I seek leave that the House rise at 5 p.m. today for the autumn adjournment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 05 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1725. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House is in the autumn adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 1 May the Government will look to progress a number of bills on the Order Paper including the remaining stages of the Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill and the Committee stage of the Regulatory Reform Bill the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill and the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. I have circulated to parties the bills that we hope to cover in the next parliamentary sitting.
Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sittings of the House 
[Sitting date: 05 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1725. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to check through you with the Leader of the House whether he is proposing to take leave soon for the House to rise at 5 p.m. I do not think he has yet taken leave to give effect to that Business Committee decision. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I had thought that was a Business Committee determination—it was agreed by the Business Committee. But as determined by the Business Committee I seek leave that the House rise at 5 p.m. today for the autumn adjournment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 05 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1725. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 5 April 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House is in the autumn adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 1 May the Government will look to progress a number of bills on the Order Paper including the remaining stages of the Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill and the Committee stage of the Regulatory Reform Bill the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill and the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. I have circulated to parties the bills that we hope to cover in the next parliamentary sitting. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to thank the Leader of the House for that and to ask him a little group of questions around one particular bit of legislation and that is the legislation to give effect to the proposed agreement with Skycity Casino. I seek an assurance that it will not be in the next 3-week sitting block that it will not be Budget night legislation that it will not be a confidence vote and that the personal vote that is involved will not be overridden by the National whips—that there will be a conscience vote for all members on it. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The shadow Leader of the House is asking me to give confirmation to his proposal that the Government does nothing; I will not do that.
Goldsmith Paul: Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goldsmith Paul: Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1702. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak against this bill the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill I am afraid.  
We have heard a lot about the “most precious” land in the country that we talking about here—the “most precious”. But what exactly are we talking about? Are we talking about a couple of square kilometres? Are we talking about 100 square kilometres? No we are actually talking about one-third of the land mass of New Zealand in schedule 4 in the Department of Conservation estate—one-third or 89564 square kilometres—so we are talking about one-third of the country almost. In square feet roughly 365000 square feet I think is the figure. So what we are talking about as the “most precious”—every hectare—is one-third of the land mass of New Zealand.  
When we are talking about a regime that allows the country to grow and make some progress then I think the arrangements we have in place at the moment whereby that area is very well protected—but also we have the ability through the Crown Minerals Act to allow the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation to amend that schedule through a clear and open process—are very sufficient. This bill which is all about making it more and more difficult is unnecessary and out of tune with the needs and requirements of this country so I oppose this bill. Thank you.
Dean Jacqui: Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1697. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 National opposes the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill. National is committed to developing our resources while protecting our environment. The Crown Minerals Act regime is being reviewed at the moment. The regime of course is 20 years old now. It is being reviewed to ensure that we do have the right balance between economic benefits and exploration and safety and environmental concerns. We do take these concerns very seriously.  
National has made good progress in improving energy minerals environmental and safety regimes. For example the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill is currently before the House. In fact it is before the Local Government and Environment Committee. That piece of legislation sets up an environmental management regime in the exclusive economic zone which is an area that of course Labour neglected in the 9 years that it held the Treasury benches.  
There is also the establishment of the High Hazards Unit within the Department of Labour which of course is a dedicated unit of inspectors who have the responsibility of regulating health and safety practices on oil and gas platforms and also in geothermal installations mines tunnels and quarries. After the 2010 consultation on schedule 4 National decided that all national parks and other types of high conservation value areas listed in schedule 4 will remain protected from mining.  
This member’s bill is unnecessary as the Crown Minerals Act already provides sufficient safeguards for schedule 4 land. Section 61 of the Crown Minerals Act requires public consultation before any Order in Council is made to add or remove land. The consultation process during 2010 which was on the proposal to remove land from schedule 4 found that the public generally opposed the proposed changes. As a result the proposed changes did not go ahead. The consultation process therefore I submit was effective. The Act also prevents land that is classified as an ecological area or islands in the Mercury Island group from being removed from schedule 4 through an Order in Council. National opposes this bill.
Robertson H V Ross: Voting — Correction—Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Voting — Correction—Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1675. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to advise the House about the correction of a vote. The result of the vote in the third reading of the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill was inaccurately reported. The result was Ayes 111 and Noes 8. The vote is corrected under Standing Order 149.
Vote: Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1668. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 8 
New Zealand First 8. 
Bill read a third time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 101 Noes 8.
Hutchison Paul: Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutchison Paul: Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1666. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to speak on this Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill and indeed to congratulate Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi on the initiative he had in clearing out the Order Paper. I must say I am deeply relieved that Dr Kennedy Graham has decided not to bring in another member’s bill to replace the Act. The only sort of bill that perhaps could replace this one might be a “Labour Party Leaders’ Manoeuvres Bill” reminiscent of the Grand Old Duke of York leading the men up the hill but in this case dispatching its leaders at the top and returning empty-handed. Maybe we will see more of that but indeed— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: That’s not as good as Ken. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: No no indeed it is not. I must admit Ken was indeed a lighthouse in Parliament today and it is great to see the Greens being so thoughtful about legislation such as this.  
I do want to say that there were some derisory comments made in the second reading by the Hon Maryan Street about the sense of this bill but one of the marvels of it is that it is a melody of brevity. Indeed during the select committee process with the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee so ably led by John Hayes the bill was actually cut down by 40 percent becoming even more melodic in terms of its brevity.  
This has been a great triumph for Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. It is not often that a member’s bill goes right through. He needs to be congratulated and I commend this bill to the House.
Graham Kennedy: Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Graham Kennedy: Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1665. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 We come now in the House to the end of this critical exercise of repealing the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915. With all the twists and turns of this Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill through the first reading select committee deliberation second reading and now the third reading the twists and turns that have characterised the passage of this bill can only have been to good effect. It has allowed us an opportunity to express the collective wisdom of this House and insight into issues pertaining to military manoeuvres. It is not too much to say I think that the collective wisdom of this House has been spent on this bill.  
I heard our Labour colleague Mr Lees-Galloway suggest—it cannot have been; did he say that it had been a waste of this House’s time? How could that be? How could it be when it has given the House the opportunity to express its depth of wisdom on an Act that has been unused for 30 years and that is about to be repealed? We heard our colleague from the Government Mr Hayes who said that not only did it allow us to express our wisdom on this legislation but also it was an expression of Government efficiency in repealing the Act. We can only agree because by removing this Act from the statute book we can ensure that there is no chance of it being used for the next 30 years as well.  
I now feel obliged to advise the House that notwithstanding that in the second reading I had floated the notion of introducing a member’s bill to bring it back in the burden of this debate has now persuaded me against that line of approach. So—[ 
Interruption 
] No no I give an undertaking—a categorical unqualified undertaking—that that will not occur. I have no intention of bringing in another member’s bill to bring this Act back in. The House has spoken. The Green Party joins others in supporting the repeal of this Act. It is with a light-hearted feeling of cooperation and unity that is unsullied that we say let this Act be repealed.
Street Maryan: Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Street Maryan: Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1665. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 This bill should not have been called the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill; this should simply have been called the “Members’ Manoeuvres Bill”. This is simply a waste of time. For the members opposite to rail about how wonderful it is to get rid of regulation they could have managed a lot more efficiently by shoving this along with a lot of other unnecessary legislation into a Statutes Amendment Bill. They know it. This was simply put in place to clog up the members’ ballot and I am not going to take any more time of the House in debating it. We support the import of this bill. We absolutely oppose the way it has been ushered through the House.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1664. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi went looking for a way to contribute to Parliament and he came up with the repeal of the Military Manoeuvres Act through the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. Well done Mr Bakshi! You have found your way to contribute. I suspect that this will be the highlight of that member’s contribution to Parliament however long his career is in this place. This is a day to celebrate. This is a day to savour. He can lap up all the faux applause that he will get from his colleagues for bringing this pointless and meaningless bill through the House.  
Mr Bakshi is absolutely right that Sir Geoffrey Palmer did suggest that this was a piece of legislation that could be got rid of. There is a way of doing that—that is through a Statutes Amendment Bill. That would be the appropriate way of doing it. This is an absolute waste of a members’ day. It is a waste of a space in the members’ bill ballot.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: So is the member. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Mr Mallard might say that but I will not go that far. I want only to note that the Labour Party supports this bill because it does no harm. It certainly will not do the nation any good. It will not fix the economy. It will not do anything useful whatsoever. And for that reason Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is probably absolutely the appropriate member to have in charge of this bill.
Vote: Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1705. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crown Minerals (Protection of Public Conservation Land Listed in the Fourth Schedule) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1645. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What action has the Government taken to contribute to the recovery of high-tech businesses in Christchurch? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Yesterday I was in Christchurch to announce the $1.8 million investment by the Ministry of Science and Innovation and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise over the next 3 years for the development of a high-tech business hub in central Christchurch. The centrally located Enterprise Precinct and Innovation Campus known as EPIC was developed in collaboration with the private sector the banking sector and the Christchurch City Council. It will give 16 high-tech Christchurch businesses which have been without permanent premises since February last year a much-needed base for their operations. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How does the Enterprise Precinct and Innovation Campus fit into the Government’s wider economic recovery plans for Christchurch? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The rebuild of Christchurch is one of this Government’s four main goals for this term alongside building competitive businesses delivering better public services and of course returning the books to surplus. The Enterprise Precinct and Innovation Campus is one of the projects detailed in the draft central city recovery plan as a catalyst to bring people and businesses back to the central city and is part of our wider support package for businesses that have been affected by the earthquake. I think this is a positive example of a public-private partnership that is not just about recovery; it is about encouraging new economic growth. The initiative will help Christchurch people remain in an attractive place and indeed help the city become an even more attractive place for the high-tech sector and people working there.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1645. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 What action—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. There is no way I can hear Nicky Wagner at the back of the House there. The previous question has now been dealt with and I want to hear Nicky Wagner on question No. 9. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The only point is that as you said that you looked this way. Actually it was the Minister again who stimulated the interjections. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The noise I heard coming from my left prevented me from hearing Nicky Wagner and that is what I was responding to.
Genter Julie Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Genter Julie Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1643. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Has the Government reviewed its highway building programme in light of the warning in the briefing to the incoming Minister that there will be a $4.9 billion funding shortfall if oil prices remain high and economic growth remains low; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 No; because I read all of the briefing to the incoming Minister which makes it clear that if oil prices continues to rise the $4.9 billion shortfall in forecast expenditure might occur in the period 2021 to 2030. It further says that this scenario is in the nature of a risk rather than a certainty. If we reviewed our roading policy every time there was a fluctuation in oil price or someone commented on our growth rate we would do nothing. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: If he believes that oil prices are cyclical or fluctuating and not rapidly trending upwards when will oil prices fall back below US$68 a barrel which was the 2012 oil price forecast when the Government first budgeted for the roads of national significance? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as the Minister of Transport has any responsibility for oil prices I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee.  
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If I knew that I would not be in this Parliament—that is for sure.  
Julie Anne Genter 
: Has he seen the Crown’s Financial Statements published today that show that road tax revenue is $66 million below forecast this year and will the Government be pumping more money from ordinary Crown revenue into his motorway projects to make up the shortfall?  
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes and no because the funding for roading projects comes from the road users.  
Julie Anne Genter 
: Has the Government determined conditions under which it would not be fiscally responsible to continue to prioritise the roads of national significance; if so what are they?  
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: One of the interesting things in the briefing to the incoming Minister is the prediction that there will be more alternative fuel vehicles on the road in the period during which the shortfall may occur. What we do notice is that those alternative fuel vehicles will still need roads so we will still be building them.  
Julie Anne Genter 
: Do not road users deserve their money to be spent on transport projects that will give the most bang for their buck that are well supported by evidence and that protect all New Zealanders from rising oil prices? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Every bit of evidence I have seen suggests that New Zealanders like the roading projects.
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1643. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What initiatives is she introducing to help schools tackle youth mental health? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 As the House is aware the Prime Minister has just announced a youth mental health package. As part of this we will be investing $12 million over 4 years to expand the Positive Behaviour for Learning school-wide programme across all secondary schools. This will encourage a culture of responsibility and address problems like bullying. Nurses will also work with decile 3 secondary schools to undertake youth development checks and will make referrals where necessary. Nurses are already working with decile 1 and 2 schools under the school-based health services initiative. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What other initiatives were announced? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: We will also be asking the Education Review Office to include student well-being as part of its regular reviews of schools. We will expect schools to be able to demonstrate what steps they are taking to improve student well-being and to show improvement over time. Specially trained youth workers will work alongside nurses in selected low-decile secondary schools to further strengthen support for young people in need. They will also trial a new programme called Check and Connect which targets young people who have disengaged or who are at risk of disengaging from schools. We will also pilot the FRIENDS for Life programme in 10 secondary schools. It aims to build students’ self-resilience and esteem in order to help them cope with depression and anxiety—key risk factors for suicide.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1642. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: Has he or any other Minister this week sought further information on Shanghai Pengxin’s application for his approval to buy the Crafar farms and if so is it coincidence or purpose that this will further delay his decision on the application? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 The answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second part of the question is neither. 
Hon David Parker 
: Can he confirm that the application from Shanghai Pengxin has now been in process for nearly 11 months and that the Overseas Investment Office said over a month ago that a new decision could be taken within days after the High Court decision found his earlier approval was invalid and illegal? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes. 
Hon David Parker 
: Has he delayed his decision so that it comes out after Mr McCully’s visit to China? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No. 
Hon David Parker 
: Were his approvals of the German purchase of Southland dairy farms and the American purchase of Central Otago dairy farms the largest ever of dairy farms to foreign buyers and how long did it take him to make his decision on those approvals? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I will not have a recollection of the exact time for any one specific application. However I will point out that during the time in office of the Labour Government— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister answered the question. That was speech material not an answer we were going on to there.
Roy Eric: Voting — Correction—Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Voting — Correction—Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1693. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before we move on to members’ order of the day No. 4 I have to report that after the reading of the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill the vote was declared as 101 in favour and 8 opposed. This was incorrect. Accordingly the votes that were cast should have made the result 111 votes in favour and 8 opposed and the record will be corrected. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just wanted to check whether that is the same change that Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson read out or is this a second change to it? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Let me respond— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think it might have already been corrected. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well if it has that is fine but in regard to the final result it will be 111 for 8 opposed and the record will show that. I was unaware that it had been corrected.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1668. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Sat sri akaal. The media on multiple occasions have reported that charitable organisations end up paying large amounts of their donations to the companies or individuals who generate these donations. One must acknowledge that collecting donations for a cause is not an easy task and that there are costs involved in raising donations. However of equal importance is the acknowledgment that the people who donate money have the right to know where how much of and for what worthy cause their money has been used. The Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill seeks to address these areas.  
The bill is not about regulated charitable organisations as these are covered under the Charities Act. It is reasonably easy for anyone to undertake an audit or examination of the financial statement of a charity if the fund-raising and subsequent spending was undertaken by the charity itself. However issues arise when the process of raising funds is handled by a third party on behalf of the charitable organisation. Activities of the third parties such as how much donation is actually collected and how much is then given to the charity are not open to public scrutiny. This bill seeks to specifically address this issue. The bill requires that the third party undertaking donation collections should make a complete disclosure of their activities.  
The bill is by no means a restriction on the way charities operate. The charities should be able to contract out their fund-raising operation and this certainly will attract cost. The focus of this bill is clear: we want transparency and disclosure in this area. I commend this bill to the House.
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1646. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: When will he approve a Recovery Plan for Christchurch’s CBD in light of the Christchurch City Council’s announcement that it will commence its Annual Plan processes next week? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 The central business district is a very small but important part of the Christchurch City Council’s total area. The annual plan covers all of Christchurch and it is appropriate that the council progress that. Discussions within the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and with the Christchurch City Council should see the central business district plan approval very soon. It must be enabling it must give clear direction and once greater clarity and certainty about its effect is understood an approval decision will be made. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Why is he planning to establish a new economic development unit within the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority which will among other functions take over the Christchurch City Council’s planning function in the central business district? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There is an economic development unit within the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. It does not have the authorities that the member speaks of. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Is he denying that officials have been working on a Cabinet paper that recommends a new economic development vehicle for Christchurch which includes the option of a unit in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority that will take over the planning role of the council in the central business district? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am not reporting to the House discussions that Cabinet might or might not be having. But what I would say is that we have been having a lot of discussions with the Christchurch City Council and if the member wants some indication of what those discussions might be about in relation to the central business district I suggest she reads volume 1 of its plan. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: How long can he continue to make these very important decisions about land use building demolitions and now taking over a core function of the city council behind closed doors without effectively engaging with the affected communities nor now with the council that was democratically elected to govern this city or is this what an earthquake tsar actually does? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No I reject that because in keeping with the sort of international best practice that we are using in Christchurch we have taken a bottom-up consultative and community-driven approach to recovery. The member may now want to assert that that is not what is happening but it is what she has called for all the time and it is the doctrine that I have used in my deliberations and reports to Cabinet on these matters.
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1717. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Hayes John: Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hayes John: Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1665. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this bill the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill brought by my colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to our Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and processed through the ballot system here in our Parliament. The select committee was unanimous in its support for the bill and the National Government supports this bill.  
The repeal of the Act supports the clean-up of legislation that is no longer necessary thereby reducing bureaucracy and tidying up our books and I think that that is a very good thing to be doing. We believe in better regulations and in less regulation because it is not required for the 21st century. What is required is a lean military system that is suited to our strategic view of the environment that we find ourselves in or we think we are going to be finding ourselves in over the next 20 or 30 years.  
We want to make our Public Service more innovative more efficient and more effective so that people in our communities can see a Government that is running a very efficient administration. We do not want our legislation cluttered with this Act and there are other Acts of a similar sort that also need to be taken out of the book. So I hope that when Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi completes this exercise he will go back to our legislation and look for further Acts to take the same action with. It is a very very good idea. We need to— 
Dr David Clark 
: This isn’t why we voted you FEC chair. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Ha ha! To the best of the Defence Force’s knowledge it does not think that this Act has been used in the last 30 years. It was specifically enacted to deal with extraordinary circumstances related to mobilisation in the First World War. It was seen as necessary by successive Governments including the 9 years of the party now in Opposition to keep the legislation just in case a war occurred again and land needed to be appropriated. But this bill addresses the broader issue I think of old legislation clogging up the books. I commend my colleague for bringing this bill to the House and pushing it through the system. Thank you.
Vote: Sustainable Biofuel Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Sustainable Biofuel Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1693. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sustainable Biofuel Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Voting — Correction—Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Voting — Correction—Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1693. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Voting 
Correction—Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before we move on to members’ order of the day No. 4 I have to report that after the reading of the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill the vote was declared as 101 in favour and 8 opposed. This was incorrect. Accordingly the votes that were cast should have made the result 111 votes in favour and 8 opposed and the record will be corrected. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just wanted to check whether that is the same change that Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson read out or is this a second change to it? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Let me respond— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think it might have already been corrected. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well if it has that is fine but in regard to the final result it will be 111 for 8 opposed and the record will show that. I was unaware that it had been corrected.
Voting — Correction—Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Voting — Correction—Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1675. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Voting 
Correction—Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to advise the House about the correction of a vote. The result of the vote in the third reading of the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill was inaccurately reported. The result was Ayes 111 and Noes 8. The vote is corrected under Standing Order 149.
Tisch Lindsay: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 03 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1634. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: If the member keeps talking after I have rung the bell that constitutes another call. I did not dock you for one and I did not dock the previous Labour member as well. But just be mindful if you continue talking and I call you again that constitutes another call. It means that later on you will not have that call if you want to speak on something else. So I just remind all members of that.  
Report noted.
Tisch Lindsay: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 03 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1617. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The House is in Committee on the Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill. The financial review debate is the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill. The time allocated for this debate is 4 hours and comprises two distinct elements. The first is the debate on the annual financial statements of the Government as reported on by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Once this has concluded the Committee debates individual financial reviews of departments Offices of Parliament and non-departmental appropriations as reported on by the select committees. The debate on the Government’s financial position may be a fairly wide-ranging one but the debates on the individual financial reviews of the departments Offices of Parliament and non-departmental appropriations should be relevant to their performance in the 2010-11 financial year and their current operations.  
The compendium of financial reviews and non-departmental appropriations available for debate is on the Table. A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. At the conclusion of the debate a single question is put on the provisions of the bill. There is no amendment to or debate on the question. The Chairperson then reports the bill to the House and it is set down for third reading forthwith. There is no debate on the third reading.