edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:17181] 
12. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: Has he had any discussions with the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery about heritage buildings or recovering cultural artefacts from buildings damaged by the earthquake on 22 February; if so what did he say to the Minister? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 Yes we have had a number of conversations about those issues. We both agreed that the priority was first to ensure that the city was as safe as possible for the rescue effort and then the recovery and rebuilding effort could begin. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Did he read the statement by Blue Shield the cultural equivalent of the Red Cross placing the expertise and network of its members at the disposal of their New Zealand colleagues; if so what action has he taken to ensure that it is involved in the process? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I do not recall reading that statement; I am sure that Ministry for Culture and Heritage officials will have read it. We are certainly anxious to contact as many people as possible around the globe to assist us with the tasks of reconstruction and also I might add deconstruction which is a different concept from demolition. It is focused deconstruction saving the materials until reconstruction can begin. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Does he agree with Bruce Chapman the chief executive of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust that much of Christchurch’s heritage could be saved; if so what action has he taken to ensure that as much as possible is saved after all due regard is had to safety? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I certainly agree with Mr Chapman. He I and a group of my Cabinet colleagues visited Christchurch last Sunday and were briefed by civil defence and various engineers on what could be done to save buildings. Mr Chapman’s views are commendable but they are not his alone. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I seek leave to table the Blue Shield statement on Christchurch offering assistance to the New Zealand Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:17180] 
11. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What work has been done to repair and reopen Christchurch’s roads and highways following the 22 February earthquake? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The State highway network was in fact remarkably resilient. The New Zealand Transport Agency worked quickly to check and reopen the vital roading links in Christchurch including the Lyttelton tunnel which was reopened to emergency vehicles the day after the quake and State Highway 74 which was reopened to general traffic flows by 24 February. The major focus has been the removal of tonnes of silt from roads in Christchurch and some remedial work has taken place on State Highways 73 and 74 including new seals. 
Colin King 
: What is being done to assist the Christchurch City Council with the repairs of local roads that are required? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The New Zealand Transport Agency and its contractor on the Christchurch Southern Motorway project immediately released workers from that project in order to fix immediate problems with the roads. The New Zealand Transport Agency is also providing engineers from around the country to assist the council with damage assessment. Looking ahead the New Zealand Transport Agency will provide a significantly higher than normal rate of funding assistance to the council so that it can get on with local road and bridge repairs. As mentioned in answer to the earlier question the cost of the repairs is currently estimated at between $300 million and $400 million. In addition we are looking at contracting arrangements that will provide Christchurch with an efficient and coordinated response to the repair of roads and other horizontal infrastructure.
Goodhew Jo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goodhew Jo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:17179] 
9. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What work will the New Zealand urban search and rescue team be carrying out in Japan? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I am informed by the New Zealand Fire Service that the New Zealand urban search and rescue team will be working in the town of Minami Sanriku in the Miyagi Prefecture in north-east Japan. This area is one of the most badly affected by the tsunami. The urban search and rescue team’s work will involve identifying the sites most likely to offer potential for finding survivors undertaking rescue operations and helping to move survivors to places of safety. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What urban search and rescue capability will remain in New Zealand to deal with another major event? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: The team deployed to Japan was in part from each of the three New Zealand urban search and rescue task forces. The Fire Service has advised that each of the three task forces are still able to operate and will backfill vacancies if needed from the Fire Service. In the case of a significant disaster event in New Zealand we would also look to international assistance as was the case for the 22 February Christchurch earthquake.
Parker David: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Parker David: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17300] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I endorse what the Hon Trevor Mallard has said. I think this is an area of the Standing Orders that works very well and very simply. There is a long-established tradition that a whip or an individual voting on his or her own behalf says only the number of votes in favour or against; anything else is out of order. That should be so whether the comment is made in English or is made in Maori and then translated. It is out of order to add extraneous words. It is a very simply enforced part of the Standing Orders and I suggest that if it is not enforced we will be allowing the introduction of extraneous words in English as well as in Maori in respect of voting because of course the same rule would apply in both situations.
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:17178] 
7. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What support has the Department of Corrections provided to the people of Christchurch following last month’s earthquake? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that prisoners have been hard at work supporting the people of Christchurch since the earthquake last month. The three Canterbury prison kitchens have put together 5000 ration packs 350 heat-and-eat meals and 500 packs of fresh vegetables harvested from the prisons’ organic vegetable gardens. Prisoners have assembled 5000 sanitation packs which have been provided to welfare agencies for distribution to those in need. The Department of Corrections has also provided a 44-foot shipping container of surplus supplies to civil defence. The supplies included 30000 bottles of handwash 185000 antibacterial wipes and a number of water containers. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What else has the Department of Corrections been doing to help Christchurch recover from the earthquake? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Since the earthquake offenders on community work have been clearing the streets and helping schools to get up and running. They have also been helping to tidy up local marae and assist in the relocation of some of the Christchurch City Mission services. This weekend prisoners will be making 2000 lunches for the Farmy Army and the Student Volunteer Army. Department vehicles will also be used to help transport student army volunteers. I acknowledge the hundreds of Department of Corrections staff who have kept our prison and probation services running in Canterbury despite facing considerable difficulties of their own at home.
Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:17178] 
8. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How much has he budgeted to raise from the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal and has this figure been revised in light of the Japanese earthquake? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 We have not budgeted on any money from the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal simply because it has been set up as a charitable trust and it is not intended to substitute for core Government responsibilities or to replicate the emergency relief support provided by Government or other charitable agencies. It may end up addressing the gap between core Government and other charitable agencies but we are not counting on any cash from it. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: If the Government is not counting on any particular amount and essentially has no idea how much is going to come and given that the Crown’s bill is likely to be close to $10 billion why is he not actively considering a temporary levy on income as a way to cover the massive shortfall? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There are a range of ways we can finance the earthquake as we have said since the earthquake occurred. In the first place we need to get better information about what those costs will be because the ranges given are often between $2 billion $3 billion and $5 billion and then we will be considering whether the Government is going to fund those costs by taking on more debt or reprioritising its spending. The Government has been looking at tightening up its spending in any case regardless of the earthquake. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Given that the Australian Government whose books are actually in better shape than ours is using a levy to pay for its disaster rather than incurring more debt as is the intention here why is the Government not seriously considering one? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It has been seriously considered and I think we have said before that our preference would be to not bring in a levy particularly at this time when economic growth is relatively weak. Many households do feel under pressure with their incomes and concerns about their jobs particularly in Christchurch and we would not want to reverse direction by imposing an extra cost on the economy at a time when we all have to work pretty hard to get it up and running.
Hide Rodney: Motions — Earthquake and Tsunami—Japan 
Hide Rodney: Motions — Earthquake and Tsunami—Japan 
[Volume:670;Page:17169] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Prime Minister’s motion. Here in New Zealand we have suffered a terrific tragedy and have had to deal with its aftermath so as a people we empathise enormously with the people of Japan: the families who have lost loved ones and the families whose children and family members are missing—who knows where—presumably never to be found. We also know that the Japanese people are now struggling with what it all will mean for them in the months and years ahead. 
We are also very conscious as a nation that Japan was one of the first countries to send aid to this little country down at the bottom of the Pacific for our fair city of Christchurch. More particularly we are conscious that the Japanese urban search and rescue teams quickly won our hearts through the care professionalism and diligence with which they went about their work risking their own lives to save Kiwi lives. We now realise that there is so little between us in our humanity. With this tragedy we feel very close to the people of Japan. I know from Japanese efforts here in New Zealand in Christchurch what high regard they hold us in and I know that the thoughts and the prayers of the New Zealand people in this troubled time will bring some comfort to them. Thank you.
Carter John: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
Carter John: Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
[Volume:670;Page:17170] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I wish to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 347 in relation to the fourth extension of the state of national emergency over Christchurch City. 
On Sunday 13 March I further extended the duration of the state of national emergency over Christchurch City under section 71 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. This was the fourth extension of the state of national emergency since it was first declared on 23 February. I consider the extension necessary to enable the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management to continue exercising his powers and functions under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act.
Roy Eric: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Roy Eric: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17367] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Hilary Calvert’s next amendment to clause 81(3) to omit “days” and substitute “months” is now out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 81(4) and (4)(a) be agreed to.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:17176] 
5. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How is her ministry responding to support the Christchurch recovery following last month’s earthquake? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Very quickly. We have already helped over 85000 people with financial assistance totalling about $85 million. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How have businesses responded in taking up the earthquake support subsidy? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The earthquake support subsidy has been used by 7825 businesses. Some have already opted out so the next group of payments may not be for the full 3 weeks. I encourage businesses that do not need it to voluntarily opt out so there is support for those that do. 
Darien Fenton 
: Is she concerned about the hundreds of cleaners in Christchurch offices and schools and the caregivers in aged-care facilities who have been unable to access their workplaces but who are excluded from job-loss cover because they were employed by multinational or national companies? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. We have tried to make exceptions for some of those cases. If the member would like to raise them with me I would be more than happy to look at them in more detail to see whether we can do something. 
Darien Fenton 
: Why is the wage subsidy not available in cases where the employer can offer work but the workers cannot attend due to the need to support their families and where workers have genuine reasons for their absence? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There are exceptions where it is available but to be honest as part of the recovery those who can work need to. I understand that some people are struggling with that; as a consequence a lot of them are receiving payments from the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. Those payments have totalled well over $12 million to date and they are still available. We figure that there is other assistance for those who are unable to get to work. Schools being back up like they are should make a difference as well. But we have a bit available for exceptions and exceptional cases.
Turei Metiria: Motions — Earthquake and Tsunami—Japan 
Turei Metiria: Motions — Earthquake and Tsunami—Japan 
[Volume:670;Page:17168] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will first acknowledge how terrible it is to have to stand for the third time in 6 months to acknowledge again the loss the fear and the destruction caused by an earthquake—the third time in 6 months. That destruction has affected not only our people; globally across the world we are seeing people suffer in the same way. The Green Party too sends all our aroha to the Japanese people for the devastation that they have suffered at the hands of the earthquake and the terrible tsunami that followed it. We want to send our support to the workers from the nuclear power plant and the families located nearby in northern Japan who are undergoing their own form of terror there as well. 
After the terrible events in Christchurch in February the Japanese people were very quick to respond to our needs and sent a team of some 66 rescue personnel to help us when we needed it in Christchurch. The Green Party is very supportive of Government moves to respond in kind to their need now. After the Christchurch earthquake we saw a great outpouring of goodwill from the international community as a whole and it is fitting that we should do our best to support the Japanese people and Japanese Government in their hour of need as well. It is good that in times like these when communities and nations are faced with devastation on such a huge scale we see people from around the world working together to help each other out. 
The Green Party’s thoughts and our prayers are with the Japanese community here in Aotearoa for the fears that they have and the losses that have been suffered in their own country and with all of the whanau living here who have friends and whanau in Japan and who are so very concerned about what is happening to those people. Kia ora.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:17174] 
3. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she stand by her statement that State support is for “people to fall back on when they really need it”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that the earthquake in Christchurch shows how important State support is and highlights the harshness of the Welfare Working Group’s recommendations? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes to the first bit no to the second. 
Metiria Turei 
: Will the Minister reject the Welfare Working Group’s recommendation for work testing and abatement rates which mean that sole parents will be required to work for 30 hours a week for less money than they currently get in the hand? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Decisions have not yet been made about the Welfare Working Group recommendations. 
Metiria Turei 
: Will the Minister reject the recommendation that benefit receipt be linked to contraception for women who are on the domestic purposes benefit? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: That was not suggested by the Welfare Working Group and no decisions have yet been made on the recommendations. 
Hon Member 
: Very good Paula Bennett. 
Metiria Turei 
: That certainly was. Will she reject the recommendation that benefits be cut off completely if people fail the work-test requirements three times—even people from Canterbury? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No decisions have yet been made on the recommendations of the Welfare Working Group. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that people in other parts of the country who have suffered from factory closures or the sudden loss of a partner also need to fall back on State support just as the people in Christchurch do; if so why will she not rule out these harsh recommendations for everyone in this country? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes to the first bit and we have not ruled anything in or out to the second. 
Metiria Turei 
: Given the devastation in Christchurch the unforeseen circumstances that can happen to anyone at any time and that 70 percent of people who receive the unemployment benefit come off it within 12 months will she not just reject the Welfare Working Group’s punishing punitive report and all its recommendations? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has a date been set for the Government to announce its response to the Welfare Working Group’s recommendation; if so what is that date? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No.
Vote: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17358] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Goff Phil: Motions — Earthquake and Tsunami—Japan 
Goff Phil: Motions — Earthquake and Tsunami—Japan 
[Volume:670;Page:17168] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Since Friday night all of New Zealand has watched in horror and with dismay the consequences of the huge earthquake in Japan of the tsunami that followed it and now of the three explosions in nuclear reactors and the threat of meltdown of those reactors. It is a disaster on a massive scale: some 20000 people are now thought to have died. Whole communities and villages have been wiped out. People are homeless and millions of people are without basics such as heating water and power supply at a time when temperatures are freezing. 
We know that Japan’s earthquake standards were higher than those of any other country in the world. Japan had the ability to withstand the earthquake but there was no way that it could protect its citizens against a 10-metre wall of water in the form of a tsunami which was the consequence of the quake. We know that nuclear radiation has been released into the atmosphere. The American naval ships have moved 160 kilometres offshore because they are detecting radiation there and half a million people have been evacuated. No nation understands better than Japan the lethal consequences of nuclear radiation. 
We join together in the House today to express our concern and our condolences to the people of Japan and to offer them whatever help we can. Just 3 weeks ago we suffered the tragedy of the Christchurch earthquake. Among the people affected were Japanese students. Japan immediately rallied to our support and dispatched an urban search and rescue team. I am pleased that we have been able to reciprocate with our own team of 52 urban search and rescue workers and I know that our country would be pleased to offer any other assistance that might be needed by Japan in its time of need. 
To the people and the Government of Japan New Zealand offers our sympathy and our support and we offer our hopes and prayers for the rescue and recovery operation and for Japan’s efforts to prevent further release of nuclear radiation.
Boscawen John: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Boscawen John: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17226] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I will make one additional point Mr Speaker. One of the reasons we are having to debate the amendments in the Committee is as you may be aware the Maori Affairs Committee met to consider a 520-page report—
Vote: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17343] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Parker David: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Parker David: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17229] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I ask for some consistency then because many of the Minister’s amendments in his lengthy Supplementary Order Paper make corrections to words that could be argued to be of similar effect. I ask the Chair to apply similar rulings to the Minister’s amendments when it comes to the consideration of them.
Boscawen John: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Boscawen John: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17227] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that when you reported to the Speaker you said to the Speaker that all those members who sought the call had been given it. Surely Mr Hone Harawira— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The matter has been dealt with. Please sit down.
Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
Ministerial Statements — Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
[Volume:670;Page:17170] 
Ministerial Statements 
Earthquake Christchurch—Extension of State of National Emergency 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I wish to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 347 in relation to the fourth extension of the state of national emergency over Christchurch City. 
On Sunday 13 March I further extended the duration of the state of national emergency over Christchurch City under section 71 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. This was the fourth extension of the state of national emergency since it was first declared on 23 February. I consider the extension necessary to enable the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management to continue exercising his powers and functions under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act.
Roy Eric: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Roy Eric: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17232] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: So for the last two you voted against. Leave is sought to amend the record. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is no one; we will do that. 
I also rule out of order Hilary Calvert’s amendments to clause 7 on Supplementary Order Paper 209 to “taonga tuturu” “territorial authority” “territorial sea” and “warden”. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clauses 8 and 9 be agreed to.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Earthquake and Tsunami—Japan 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Earthquake and Tsunami—Japan 
[Volume:670;Page:17170] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 When we gathered in this Chamber 3 weeks ago in the immediate aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake we were all filled with a sense of shock and disbelief at the destruction that had been wrought in that city and with the incomprehensibility of what had taken place. Over the last 3 weeks as we have started to come to grips with that reality and the process of recovery has got under way we have begun to understand a little more about nature’s forces and the circumstances that give rise to these events. But nothing could have prepared us to imagine that last Friday evening an earthquake 8000 times more powerful than Christchurch’s would inflict such horrendous damage and that its accompanying tsunami would obliterate so much of north-eastern Japan. 
Although we properly mourn for the people who died in Christchurch and those who have suffered loss we find it hard to comprehend the scale of the figures being talked about in the Japanese case—tens of thousands of people potentially killed landscapes devastated and thriving cities and towns turned into wastelands very reminiscent in their appearance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after 1945. Then there are the things that really bring it home to us—the fact that the urban search and rescue teams who struggled so valiantly in Christchurch are now without respite doing precisely the same task in Japan. I remember reading many years ago a book by a country general practitioner in Central Otago that had the evocate title  
Growl You May But Go You Must 
. It is about people being called out at all hours of the day and night to respond to patients. I thought of that title in the context of these urban search and rescue personnel who have had no chance to recover from their exigencies in Christchurch but who are now facing a much graver situation in Japan. 
I join with others in expressing sympathy to the Government and the people of Japan in their sad loss expressing gratitude to the Government of Japan for its help to New Zealand in our hour or need and expressing the hope that our personnel who are now helping in Japan can effect some small area of progress in what will be a massive battle to restore normality and the usual way of life to the people of Japan. Our thoughts are very much with them at this tragic time. 
Motion agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17226] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe that is helpful to the House. The member made a perfectly fair point of order a moment ago but I do not think we need to get into that detail. The Speakers’ rulings on this issue have been in place for some time and in fact in our current Speakers’ rulings go back to 1931. There is good reason why Speakers’ rulings are the way they are and that is that the Chair of the Committee of the whole House is obviously in the best position to assess the state of the debate. The Chair has reported to me that there have been 27 calls on Part 1 and that some members have had up to three calls. The Chair of the Committee of the whole House is clearly in the best position to assess whether a closure motion when put should be accepted. Speakers’ ruling 65/3 is particularly clear on this matter: “The [chairperson] is the sole judge as to whether or not he ought to sanction the putting of the closure motion and it must be left entirely in his hands.” Excuse the sexist language but obviously it was a male Chair of the Committee back in those days. What is more Speaker’s ruling 65/4 goes on to state: “It is not for the Speaker to second-guess the Chair’s judgment [on the closure].” 
If the Committee of the whole House does not agree that the closure should be accepted then the Committee votes on the matter and is at liberty to vote down a closure motion. So I must I believe in all conscience stick with the existing Speakers’ rulings on this matter—that the Chair of the Committee must be the sole judge of whether the closure motion should be accepted and put to the Committee for the vote. I must on that basis return the matter to the Chair of the Committee. 
Stuart Nash 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will briefly hear a point of order from the member.
Cosgrove Clayton: Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16798] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to rule on the following matter. The issue—without relitigating it—that you asked me to withdraw on I do not challenge but I would like to know this in terms of what is considered to be unparliamentary language because I did put it to Speaker Smith. I just want to know whether you are ruling that the term “Shut up!” which is neither foul language nor anything else is now deemed to be unparliamentary. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I made a ruling that in the context of what the member said against a Government member the term was out of order and it was unparliamentary. I have ruled on that matter and that is the end of it. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Point of order— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There is to be no further discussion; I have ruled. There is no further discussion. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Point of order— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have just said to the member that I have ruled and that that is the end of the matter. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am taking a point of order. Bearing in mind that I am not challenging your ruling but just want to clarify your ruling I ask whether it is clear that when a member constantly barracks another member we cannot retaliate in kind with English language out of the dictionary. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has the right to retaliate and this has been a robust debate. The words that the member used I deemed to be out of order—unparliamentary—and I ruled in that fashion. There is nothing to stop the member rebuking a member over what has been said; this has been a robust debate. I have not interrupted during the course of this debate but what the member said I found offensive and I ruled on that matter.
Vote: Road User Charges Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Road User Charges Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16790] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
to omit all the words after “May 2011”. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Motion agreed to.
Delahunty Catherine: Legal Services Bill — Second Reading 
Delahunty Catherine: Legal Services Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16772] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I change my vote on the previous bill please? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: There was no vote. We had a vote but no division was called for. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: Can I call for a division? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: You are seeking leave for there to be a party vote? 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: Yes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for there to be a party vote on the Legal Services Bill. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Legal Services Bill — Second Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Legal Services Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16769] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 It is my privilege to speak in the second reading of the Legal Services Bill. The National Government intends to make sure that all New Zealanders have access to a high-quality legal system. The Government also wants to ensure that taxpayers’ money is well spent. The review undertaken by Dame Margaret Bazley in 2009 identified many challenges faced by our legal aid system and also inadequate processes to ensure quality. Dame Margaret’s report identified failings that posed a serious risk to the future of our legal aid system including the variable quality of legal aid services inefficiencies created by prospective legislation and serious service delivery issues. 
The clear message was that it was time for fundamental changes. The trouble these days is that offenders know their rights better than their mistakes. The Justice and Electoral Committee recommended many changes to be considered after considering submissions. One of the changes recommended by the committee that I think is very important is that the secretary is required to cancel the approval of a provider who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment. This would not only align the provision with provisions in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 but would also ensure that providers are held to appropriate professional standards and would protect the reputation of the profession. 
Another important change was the recommendation to amend clause 77 by inserting new subclause 3A which would require the Secretary for Justice to provide a reason for declining or giving approval for a provider to provide legal aid or specified legal service. That will make the secretary accountable for his or her decisions. The legislation also creates a system in which taxpayers can have confidence and will also provide high-quality legal service by capable professionals. 
The legal aid service is vital to our most vulnerable citizens. The changes made will make the users as well as the providers proud. To date the legal aid system is facing real challenges both in terms of increasing expenditure and the quality of legal services funded through legal aid. Last year there were 85156 legal aid grants costing taxpayers $131 million. The legal services bill shows that the Hon Simon Power the Minister of Justice has acted speedily to address the issues identified in Dame Margaret’s report. 
I also acknowledge the hard work of the Justice and Electoral Committee under the chairmanship of Chester Borrows which made those recommendations to be considered as well as the staff. We are confident that this package of changes will help build more public confidence that the legal aid system will provide quality services for those who need it while giving taxpayers value for money. I support this bill at its second reading.
Woodhouse Michael: Road User Charges Bill — First Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Road User Charges Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16789] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a quick call at the end of the first reading of the Road User Charges Bill but before I do I would very much like to address the rantings of the member Mr Nash about the quality of roading in Napier. It seemed odd to me that he would bag his own town to quite that degree. I spent a few days in Napier very recently and I can assure the House and those listening that the roads in Napier are in very good condition. The only thing that people in that place wanted to talk about was how good the hard-working MP for Napier was for them although I must say that the member should take up with the regional land transport committee the small issue of the intersection of State Highway 2 and the turn-off to the airport which seemed to take for ever to get through. Otherwise I think that Napier is in very fine fettle and a picture of moderation—“modernation” perhaps. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Modernation—it’s a new word. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: It is. It is a further evolution of the nomenclature. One of the abiding memories of the 2008 election for me particularly as I am not driven to protest publicly was standing in the Octagon on that very cold July morning with several hundred trucks circling it. The people there were not normally very empathetic with the values of National but I think that we picked up a great deal of support through that. Members will know that the independent review was actually the result of that protest and that it was put in place by the previous Minister of Transport Mrs King. I welcome our new member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee Mr Jones who is a funny guy. He is intelligent and articulate and certainly funny in relation to his criticism that the present Minister of Transport has somehow lacked consultation in this process. That is ironic in the extreme. 
I want to pick up on Darien Fenton’s comments about using the averages which potentially favour larger operators. She then conflicted her own position by pointing out that many of those trucks are travelling around only half full and therefore the larger the truck the bigger the penalty it will receive for travelling around half full. So I think that the averaging process will remove any of the anomalies that presently exist in the charging regime. 
I also want to add my voice to the support for those strategies that will eliminate the evasion of up to $32 million worth of road user charges. I am sure we will hear more about that in the select committee. I support the bill. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Regulatory Reform Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Regulatory Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16756] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Regulatory Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.
Vote: Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16738] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time.
English Bill: Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
English Bill: Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16738] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
.
Mallard Trevor: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Mallard Trevor: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:670;Page:16738] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a matter of clarification about the rules on this vote. I think we are all aware that enough Maori Party members are in the House for a vote of five. Is this an indication that Mr Harawira’s vote should be given separately? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No; the member cannot use a point of order for that. It is entirely up to a party how it casts its votes and how many votes it casts. The one thing it cannot do is cast more votes than it has as its number of allocated seats. But parties can if they so choose cast fewer for reasons that remain reasons for that party.
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:670;Page:16738] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That this House express its confidence in the National-led Government and commend its programme for 2011 as set out in the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Carter David: Road User Charges Bill — First Reading 
Carter David: Road User Charges Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16790] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Transport 
: 
 I move  
That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
consider the Road User Charges Bill that the committee report finally to the House on or before 25 May 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We have an amendment in the name of Chris Hipkins to omit the words after “May 2011”.
Street Maryan: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Street Maryan: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:670;Page:16733] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 When the House adjourned at the end of last week I was saying that the programme we heard in the Prime Minister’s speech for getting New Zealand out of what is now widely recognised as a double-dip recession has two strands to it. The first strand is selling off the family silver but disguising it as being available to ordinary ma and pa investors despite the fact that they are the very mums and dads who are trying to manage the Government’s increase in GST in order to put food on the table for their families. The second strand is to give the rich tax cuts because somehow they will trickle down to the less well-off. 
It is the same tired old National Party recipe we have heard for years from its members. Since the Government took office 52000 more people are out of a job. A tax cut is not a priority for those people; getting a job is their priority. So where are the jobs? We know that before the election in 2008 the current Prime Minister or as he then was the Leader of the Opposition used to say frequently that he was ambitious for New Zealand. But in a recent FM radio interview at the end of January he was asked to name his top three priorities for New Zealand for 2011—his top three priorities. His first goal was for New Zealand to win the Rugby World Cup. Every New Zealander wants the All Blacks to win the Rugby World Cup but I suggest that it will have more to do with Richie McCaw’s foot than it will have to do with John Key. 
John Key then went on to say as his second important goal for 2011 that there was something later on in the year—we were aware he was obviously referring to the election—that he wanted to win. We know that if he does not win the election he is gone. He has already told us that if he does not win he is throwing his toys out of the cot and he is gone. This is the amateur Prime Minister. He said he is not going to hang around as runner-up. He has got the T-shirt now and he will be off if he does not win the election. Where is the ambition for New Zealand? 
John Key was asked to talk about three things that were priorities for him for 2011 and his third priority was to go to the royal wedding. Let us hope he has a nice frock. This is absolutely poverty-stricken. It is a complete waste of space for a Prime Minister who said he was ambitious for New Zealand but when confronted with the fact that people’s power prices are going up food prices are going up ACC levies are going up—quite unnecessarily in the latter case—petrol prices are going up rents are going up rates are going up early childhood education costs are going up and tertiary fees are going up said he wants to go to the royal wedding. 
There is nothing about the Government’s priorities that would indicate to any New Zealanders out there who are finding life difficult and who are finding it hard to make ends meet that the Prime Minister has their future their well-being and their prospects and the prospects of their children at heart. Thank you.
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:670;Page:16731] 
11. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Statistics 
: What information has he received on preparations for this year’s census? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 I can feel the electricity building; the tension is incredible! I am pleased to report that Statistics New Zealand is ready for the census. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Good answer. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: There is actually more I say to Mr Power. Statistics New Zealand is ready for the census on Tuesday 8 March. Over 7000 census collectors will be delivering to nearly 2 million households and that delivery begins on Saturday 19 February. The first television commercials went to air last week in a campaign to raise awareness. This is also the first year Statistics New Zealand has used YouTube where the campaign ads can be viewed online when anybody wants to do so. It is an exciting time in Statistics New Zealand. 
Nikki Kaye 
: How can the public complete their forms in this year’s census? 
Hon David Carter 
: With a pen. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: My colleague David Carter has just intervened and said: “With a pen.” but I have better news for people. This year people will get not only their forms but also an access code for the Internet site. I urge as many New Zealanders as can possibly do it to fill out their forms via the Internet. If everybody in an individual house uses the Internet the census collector will not even need to collect from that house. It will be quick it will be fun and it has made statistics come alive.