edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Delahunty Catherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Delahunty Catherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5320] 
8.  
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Why has he not recognised the collective rights of Maori as affirmed by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Although New Zealand has not yet publicly affirmed and recognised the declaration the Prime Minister has indicated that he would like to see New Zealand move to support the declaration provided that we can protect the unique and advanced framework that has been developed for the resolution of issues related to indigenous rights. The Government has sought advice on the implications of supporting the declaration and the extent to which any risks can be mitigated. Officials are still preparing that advice and no decisions one way or the other have yet been made. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Why is the Government so reluctant to recognise Maori rights under international law when Maori have been so generous and practical in their negotiations with the Crown over these rights in Aotearoa? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: There is not reluctance just care involved in this process. New Zealand’s position on the declaration does not change the Government’s ongoing commitment to a good-faith approach to working with Maori. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Would it not be timely given that it is Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori and the end of Matariki for the Government to recognise the UN declaration which upholds the rights of tangata whenua and te reo Maori? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I understand the member’s point but it would be more timely to make sure that if support was forthcoming it would be done in a way that was carefully thought out meaning that any proposition would be enduring. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Could he outline the advantages to Aotearoa New Zealand of supporting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The advantages are that in an aspirational way it would reflect many Governments’ commitments to working in good faith with Maori on many issues. However as the Prime Minister and I have both said—in this House I believe and certainly before a select committee in recent times in any event—the important point is to make sure that the unique framework constitutionally put in place primarily by the Treaty of Waitangi is not disrupted by any affirmation of the declaration and it is important to make sure that any affirmation if it were to occur is enduring.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5313] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has been asked to table those documents and therefore must table them. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Yes I am. 
Document laid on the Table of the House.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5313] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I just check that the Minister was quoting from an official document. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Yes I was.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5313] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Forgive me for interrupting the next question. The Minister of Corrections in answer to a number of my questions quoted from at least one document provided to the Minister of Corrections including a document from a regional manager. On that basis under Standing Order 367 I ask her to table the document or documents.
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5309] 
2.  
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What progress is the Government making towards its goal of settling historical Treaty of Waitangi claims? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Today the House will vote on the third reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ke Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill which will settle the claims of those iwi whose rights were breached in the sale and the management of the Port Nicholson Block. The settlement provides for cultural and commercial redress including a financial package of around $25 million. It will vest a number of culturally significant sites in Taranaki Whanui. However it is worth noting that no public access will be affected by the settlement which satisfies all historical claims by the iwi involved. This is a significant step towards the Government’s goal of settling all historical Treaty claims in a just and durable manner. 
Paul Quinn 
: Why is the enactment of this bill significant? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Once the bill has been passed the Prime Minister will deliver the Crown’s apology to Taranaki Whanui representatives and then they will formally forgive the Crown in accordance with the deed of settlement. This is an unprecedented step for an iwi to take. It marks the desire on the part of the trust to ensure that there is closure between the Crown and Taranaki Whanui and hopefully it will mark the beginning of a new relationship between iwi and the Crown. This is very welcome and it shows how successfully Maori and the Crown have succeeded in working together to address the wrongs of the past for the good of all New Zealanders. 
Paul Quinn 
: What benefits will the Taranaki Whanui settlement bring for the Wellington region? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: One of the features of this settlement is the extent of engagement between iwi local government and central government. This will result in better conservation outcomes and management of a number of natural resources and specific sites in the region although as I said in my answer to the primary question it is important to emphasise continued public access being protected for all New Zealanders. The Government is committed to helping local government and iwi work together to promote the best possible management of natural resources in a way that ensures all New Zealanders can continue to enjoy them in a sustainable way.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Queensland Legislative Assembly 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Queensland Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:656;Page:5309] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sure members would wish to join me in welcoming a delegation from the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee of the Queensland Legislative Assembly led by Kerry Shine MP who are seated in the gallery today. 
Question time resumed.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:656;Page:5307] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I understand that the previous Government passed emissions trading legislation. The current Government is looking at how it may improve it. I expect that when the improvements are made the Government will advance it through the House.
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
[Volume:656;Page:5307] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Is it the intention of the Government to pass the emissions trading legislation in the next 3-week sitting block?
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:656;Page:5307] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 4 August it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Road User Charges Amendment Bill the Limitation Bill and the Immigration Bill. It is also expected that we may make a start on the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill. That is an 8-hour debate and we should get some of it done in the coming week. Also following agreement by the Business Committee David Shearer will make his maiden statement to the House on Wednesday 5 August at approximately 5.45 p.m.
Visitors — Australia—Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Queensland Legislative Assembly 
Visitors — Australia—Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Queensland Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:656;Page:5309] 
Visitors 
Australia—Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee Queensland Legislative Assembly 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sure members would wish to join me in welcoming a delegation from the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee of the Queensland Legislative Assembly led by Kerry Shine MP who are seated in the gallery today. 
Question time resumed.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:656;Page:5307] 
Thursday 30 July 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Karakia 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 4 August it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Road User Charges Amendment Bill the Limitation Bill and the Immigration Bill. It is also expected that we may make a start on the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill. That is an 8-hour debate and we should get some of it done in the coming week. Also following agreement by the Business Committee David Shearer will make his maiden statement to the House on Wednesday 5 August at approximately 5.45 p.m. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Is it the intention of the Government to pass the emissions trading legislation in the next 3-week sitting block? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I understand that the previous Government passed emissions trading legislation. The current Government is looking at how it may improve it. I expect that when the improvements are made the Government will advance it through the House.
Harawira Hone: Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill — First Reading 
Harawira Hone: Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5301] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 What possible defence can there be for maintaining the “day after” holidays—the day after 1 January and the day after Christmas Day—or for maintaining events that commemorate a man who devised a gunpowder plot to blow up the English Parliament yet to flatly refuse to engage in conversation about an indigenous-inspired event for Aotearoa? All we want is to let the people have a say. 
What does it tell us when the Prime Minister was asked in June 2009 about whether he would support Matariki Day and responded: “I can’t say I have given any great thought to the matter but it’s probably a no”? The Te Ra o Matariki Bill is the opportunity to give great thought to supporting an event that is celebrated by many nationalities throughout Aotearoa. It is an opportunity to embrace a celestial event a festival that is inclusive of this place and respectful of indigenous origins. It is an opportunity to listen to others to open the door and to have the conversation not to say no before the debate has even begun. 
Today Business New Zealand launched a set of proposals entitled  
Setting New Zealand Apart 
 which is a contribution to a national conversation about how we can perform better. We believe that the bill is the ideal means by which to improve New Zealand’s productivity while at the same time boosting cultural identity. A national celebration of our unique indigenous beginnings a day in the midst of winter when workers could be revitalised physically mentally and spiritually could well set Aotearoa apart as a nation that cares for its people workers families and communities. 
In closing I return to the wisdom of Dr Rawiri Taonui: “Some say that Matariki should become a public holiday. Good idea. The small constellation of glittering jewels reflects our journey as one nation two peoples and many cultures—a time for New Zealanders to shine as one.” Kia ora tatou. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member Rahui Katene is required by Standing Order 279(1) to indicate in her introductory speech the select committee to which the bill is intended to go. Could the member Hone Harawira indicate which committee the bill will go to if the House agrees to it. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: The Maori Affairs Committee.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Beneficiaries—Release of Personal Information 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Beneficiaries—Release of Personal Information 
[Volume:656;Page:5244] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Annette King seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the adoption by the Minister for Social Development and Employment of a new policy on the release of private information relating to individual beneficiaries. Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence and involve the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence the event upon which an urgent debate is sought must be an event that has occurred when the application is lodged. An event occurs at the point in time when a decision is publicly announced. The member has provided no authentication of an actual announcement of a new policy by the Minister. Every statement in a letter seeking to debate a matter of urgent public importance must be authenticated. Therefore in accordance with Speaker’s ruling 170/5 the application is declined on that ground.
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5244] 
12.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he stand by his proposed reforms for Auckland governance? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Local Government 
: The answer is yes but of course the Government is listening to the people of Auckland by way of a series of public meetings and more recently by way of a select committee process that heard significant submissions and was ably chaired by the outstanding erudite popular fantastic long-serving highly regarded member John Carter. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister agree—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear Phil Twyford. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he agree with the 55 percent of submitters heard by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee the 80 percent of North Shore residents and the 77 percent of Waitakere residents in two recent opinion polls all of whom rejected the Government’s proposal for councils elected at large and instead want to see all members of the new Auckland Council elected from local wards? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Of course those are matters that are currently before the select committee and the member like everyone else will have to be patient until the select committee has deliberated and reports back to the Parliament. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister believe there is a contradiction between his core services agenda and the Prime Minister asking local government to build parts of his bike trail; if so how does he interpret the fact that the Minister’s biggest applause at yesterday’s Local Government New Zealand conference came after he stated: “I have faced electoral oblivion many times in my career. And one day it will happen.”? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Firstly I state that the Minister of Local Government and his party intend to be around for a very very long time yet; and secondly I can also say that there is no conflict. The fact is that the Government is working with local government across this country to deal with a whole number of these issues and the response that has been received to the Prime Minister’s address the Minister of Local Government’s address and the address of the Associate Minister of Local Government to the Local Government New Zealand conference held over the last 3 days has been very very positive indeed.
Turei Metiria: Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill — First Reading 
Turei Metiria: Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5306] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to express the Green Party’s support for the Te Ra o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill; our nine votes will support its referral to a select committee. I also stand in support of my Maori Party colleagues who brought this bill to the House. As I well know members’ bills are hard fought for rare and deserve a great deal of consideration certainly more than what I think the National Party has given to bills this evening. 
Firstly I say the Green Party particularly supports the concept of a holiday in the period between Queen’s Birthday and Labour Day. One of the issues we have with this bill and we would be happy to explore it in the select committee is the time period for this holiday because in the bill it is quite early. None the less we fully support there being an additional holiday for workers and their families particularly at this time when families are under a great deal more pressure and stress than they were under. The opportunity to spend more time with each other on days that workers can have off is a very good thing and the Green Party fully supports that. 
One issue that has not been raised sufficiently in the debate is that this bill is a means to recognise tikanga Maori in a legislative form—and it is a fairly minor form. This would be the first time that this has happened in legislation in any real way outside the colonial framework. This bill is about recognising a Maori approach to or a Maori world view of the nature of the cosmos and time periods. It is about recognising pre-colonial Maori legitimacy and there is no debate in this House about that. National is all talk. It is concerned only about industry. Earlier today we heard about National’s support for the fishing industry and that it is only interested in supporting employers. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5299] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Goods Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5286] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion not agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Sustainable Biofuel Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Sustainable Biofuel Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5264] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next member the remaining speeches will be of 5-minutes duration. I will ring a bell when there is 1 minute to go.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5243] 
11.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Transport 
: What work is the Government undertaking to improve rail safety in New Zealand? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. This week the Government is supporting Australasian Rail Safety Awareness Week to raise the profile of rail safety and in particular to encourage motorists to take seriously the risks posed by level crossings. Over recent years education and the improvement of infrastructure have led to a steady reduction in the number of train collisions with vehicles pedestrians and cyclists but more work is needed. The Government contributes $1 million per year to upgrade level crossings with warning lights bells and half-arm barriers. This contribution is made up of $500000 from the Crown and $500000 from the New Zealand Transport Agency. 
David Bennett 
: What can the public do to make a difference to rail safety? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Although the Government is taking a leading role in improving rail safety with the Chris Cairns Foundation it is important for the public to use common sense to keep themselves safe. I urge all motorists to treat level crossings as stop signs. People need to realise that level crossings are as dangerous as intersections on the open road. Even if a crossing is equipped with barrier arms and lights drivers need to check for themselves that no train is approaching. Pedestrians also need to be aware that the tracks are for trains; there is no reason for people to put their lives at risk by walking along the tracks. 
Darien Fenton 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. What will the Minister say to locomotive drivers traumatised by the doubling of level crossing accident rates this year given that his Government intends to remove accident compensation cover for the mental trauma drivers suffer in such accidents? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: As I alluded to in the primary answer this Government is focused on trying to make level crossings safer. Indeed this week we have had a rail awareness focus with the Chris Cairns Foundation. The Government is working very closely with ONTRACK to ensure that we are upgrading the level crossings. At the moment about 10 level crossings are upgraded per annum and the focus this week on rail safety improvement and awareness will ensure that there are fewer accidents and collisions in the future resulting in less trauma for the drivers of the locomotives.
Nash Stuart: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Nash Stuart: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5241] 
9.  
STUART NASH (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement on 15 June that “taxpayers are supporting the banks and we want the banks to be able to demonstrate that they are going to support businesses and households through a tough time in the economy even if it affects their profits a bit”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Stuart Nash 
: What contact have the Minister his staff and his officials had directly or through intermediaries with the ANZ National Bank BNZ ASB Westpac Kiwibank or PSIS since the announcement last Tuesday of the Opposition parties’ inquiry into banks? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I the officials I am directly responsible for in Treasury and I suppose those I am indirectly in contact with through the Reserve Bank have regular discussions with the banks. Announcements made by the Opposition have no impact on that whatsoever. 
Stuart Nash 
: Does the Minister agree with the Governor of the Reserve Bank’s comments that the pricing of floating rate mortgages appears unusually high in recent months; if so why has he not supported the governor’s recommendation around an inquiry into the relationship between the official cash rate and interest rates charged on floating mortgages? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I agree with the Reserve Bank’s analysis. Members are free to do whatever they like but I advise the member now if he is not aware of it that an inquiry by Opposition MPs probably will not make any difference. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Has the Minister seen any reports on interest rates and bank margins over the last decade? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen a couple of reports. The first which is on the Reserve Bank’s website shows that average interest rates on floating mortgages peaked at 10.9 percent in May 2008. I also point out the Reserve Bank’s  
Financial Stability Report 
 which shows that bank margins peaked in 2003 stayed at historic highs until quite recently and are now at historic lows. I am a bit surprised that those Opposition members who were in Government for all of that time are now saying that these margins are too high. My question to them asks what they did about it while they were in Government.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5240] 
8.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: What progress has the Government made with regards to aquaculture reform? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce that we have formed a technical advisory group of those with knowledge of the marine farming industry those who know at first hand about the industry and its challenges. This group will support the Government in its work towards vastly improving the current aquaculture regime. Solving the issues in aquaculture is an important priority for this Government and we expect this group to report back to us later this year with some very strict and smart recommendations. 
Colin King 
: Who is on the technical advisory group? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am delighted to announce that Doug Kidd a former Minister of Fisheries has agreed to chair the group. Other members of the group include Dennis Bush-King a Resource Management Act specialist Mike Burrell the chief executive of Aquaculture New Zealand Kirsty Woods from Te Ohu Kaimoana Nici Gibbs from the Seafood Industry Council Mark Farnsworth from Northland Regional Council and Keir Volkerling a Resource Management Act consultant. All members have unique technical expertise and are well versed in the operations of the industry on the ground. 
Colin King 
: What are the broad functions of the group? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Broadly speaking the group is to generate proposals for reform of the aquaculture legislation which desperately needs it. It will review any advice on proposals provided to it. It will report directly to me to the Hon Nick Smith and to the Hon Gerry Brownlee through written recommendations and meetings as required.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5239] 
7.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Does she stand by her reported statement that the “Government would not step in to remove the barriers and allow the polytechnics to accept extra students”; if so why? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. No because I did not say that. In a new phase of Labour Party desperation the member is quoting her own press statement— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister should know that if she makes that kind of comment in answering the question it will provoke disorder. I do not think it was necessary to make that kind of comment at this early stage of the answer. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I quote from her press statement of 25 June: “But Education Minister Anne Tolley confirmed today that the Government would not step in to remove the barriers and allow the polytechnics to accept extra students …”. I did not say that; the member did. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: If the predicted increase in enrolments materialises and a possible 6000 to 8000 students are turned away from the polytechs what plans does the Minister have to support and upskill those people so that they can contribute to New Zealand’s economic recovery? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As I have said to that member in this House before those are projections. They are projections done by each institution and each institution does not necessarily use the same basis for those projections. History has shown that those projections are not particularly reliable. However this Government is watching the situation very closely. I am reporting constantly to my colleagues and we will deal with the situation that arises when it arises. 
Louise Upston 
: What are the Government’s priorities for the polytechnics? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: This Government wants to improve the educational and financial viability of the polytechnic sector. We want to have polytechs that deliver high-quality education for their students that live within their means successfully and that are structured to meet the needs of New Zealand’s economy now and into the future. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Does the Minister intend to cut polytechnic councils to eight members and appoint half of them including the chairperson; if she does what purpose does she have in doing so and will that level of control be used to increase or remove the barriers to student enrolments at polytechnics? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: There are a number of questions there; I will answer the first one. No decisions have been made. Considerable discussion is happening with the sector. It is an issue that has been raised with me by the sector itself since I became the Minister.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
[Volume:656;Page:5224] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Jim Anderton is flouting my ruling and the member will not continue to do that. What political parties wish to do in this place is nothing to do with the business of this House. I have made that very clear. I have received advice on the matter; it is not just a rush of blood to my head. I have received serious advice on the matter. My ruling has no implications for the privileges of this House whatsoever and I have made that very clear. I will not tolerate any further abuse of the House.
Anderton Jim: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
Anderton Jim: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
[Volume:656;Page:5224] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better be a different point of order Mr Anderton. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The issue then is whether the privileges of the House are matters for the House itself to consider. If they are then why can a matter like this not be raised here because it is a serious matter of privilege if members of Parliament cannot use the facilities of the House for—
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
[Volume:656;Page:5224] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I have made it very clear that the bookings for the use of the buildings on the parliamentary precincts are nothing to do with the order of this House. In fact the matter that concerns members wishing to use facilities on this precinct is not parliamentary business. It has nothing to do with the business of this House and that is why the matter cannot be raised by way of a point of order. I will not allow this matter to take up further time in the House.
Anderton Jim: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
Anderton Jim: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
[Volume:656;Page:5224] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This relates to your substantive ruling on the use of the parliamentary precincts for multiparty events. The reason I raise it here is that this is a matter for the privileges of—
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
[Volume:656;Page:5223] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am afraid that is not a matter for a point of order. I made that very clear yesterday. Although I accepted some points of order on the matter yesterday I am making it very clear that I will not accept further points of order on it. It has nothing to do with order of this House and that is the end of the matter.
Anderton Jim: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
Anderton Jim: Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
[Volume:656;Page:5223] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to an issue that was raised with you yesterday. It is an unusual and rare occurrence for me to do so. I was not able to be in the House yesterday. I have had the opportunity to review your ruling and I rise to ask whether you would think again about the ruling that you made. My colleague David Cunliffe raised a point of order with you about the booking of rooms in the precincts of Parliament.
Dalziel Lianne: Personal Explanations — Beneficiaries—Release of Personal Information 
Dalziel Lianne: Personal Explanations — Beneficiaries—Release of Personal Information 
[Volume:656;Page:5223] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 349 in response to the allegations that have been made publicly that I was involved in the release of the details of the two people whose stories were published in the  
Herald 
on Sunday 
 and whose benefit information was released to the media. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I was approached by a constituent whose name I wish to keep confidential. She asked what she would have to do to make the Government change its mind about the training incentive allowance cuts that have affected her quite badly. I said to her that stories like hers might make the Government change its mind. 
I said I would write to the Minister for Social Development and Employment on the constituent’s behalf and bring her details to the attention of the Minister in order to get some response as to why the decision about the training incentive allowance cuts had been made. But I said that at some stage it would be necessary for the stories to be told publicly in order that we could ensure that we would get the change. In fact I used an example of when I had talked to a Minister from a previous Government and because of personal cases got a change in policy after the policy had been announced. The constituent said she could not put her personal details out there because she was under a protection order. We discussed gathering other names other examples and other stories. 
I have never given any of the information she passed on to me to any member of the media and I did not know that the two individuals concerned about whom the reporter for the  
Herald on Sunday 
 independently of me obtained details were even being interviewed. 
I seek the leave of the House to table an email from Leah Haines which I have received today confirming that that is true. 
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.
Urgent Debates Declined — Beneficiaries—Release of Personal Information 
Urgent Debates Declined — Beneficiaries—Release of Personal Information 
[Volume:656;Page:5244] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Beneficiaries—Release of Personal Information 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Annette King seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the adoption by the Minister for Social Development and Employment of a new policy on the release of private information relating to individual beneficiaries. Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence and involve the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence the event upon which an urgent debate is sought must be an event that has occurred when the application is lodged. An event occurs at the point in time when a decision is publicly announced. The member has provided no authentication of an actual announcement of a new policy by the Minister. Every statement in a letter seeking to debate a matter of urgent public importance must be authenticated. Therefore in accordance with Speaker’s ruling 170/5 the application is declined on that ground.
Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
[Volume:656;Page:5223] 
Points of Order 
Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to an issue that was raised with you yesterday. It is an unusual and rare occurrence for me to do so. I was not able to be in the House yesterday. I have had the opportunity to review your ruling and I rise to ask whether you would think again about the ruling that you made. My colleague David Cunliffe raised a point of order with you about the booking of rooms in the precincts of Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am afraid that is not a matter for a point of order. I made that very clear yesterday. Although I accepted some points of order on the matter yesterday I am making it very clear that I will not accept further points of order on it. It has nothing to do with order of this House and that is the end of the matter. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This relates to your substantive ruling on the use of the parliamentary precincts for multiparty events. The reason I raise it here is that this is a matter for the privileges of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I have made it very clear that the bookings for the use of the buildings on the parliamentary precincts are nothing to do with the order of this House. In fact the matter that concerns members wishing to use facilities on this precinct is not parliamentary business. It has nothing to do with the business of this House and that is why the matter cannot be raised by way of a point of order. I will not allow this matter to take up further time in the House. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better be a different point of order Mr Anderton. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The issue then is whether the privileges of the House are matters for the House itself to consider. If they are then why can a matter like this not be raised here because it is a serious matter of privilege if members of Parliament cannot use the facilities of the House for— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Jim Anderton is flouting my ruling and the member will not continue to do that. What political parties wish to do in this place is nothing to do with the business of this House. I have made that very clear. I have received advice on the matter; it is not just a rush of blood to my head. I have received serious advice on the matter. My ruling has no implications for the privileges of this House whatsoever and I have made that very clear. I will not tolerate any further abuse of the House.
Personal Explanations — Beneficiaries—Release of Personal Information 
Personal Explanations — Beneficiaries—Release of Personal Information 
[Volume:656;Page:5223] 
Wednesday 29 July 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Karakia 
. 
Personal Explanations 
Beneficiaries—Release of Personal Information 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 349 in response to the allegations that have been made publicly that I was involved in the release of the details of the two people whose stories were published in the  
Herald 
on Sunday 
 and whose benefit information was released to the media. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I was approached by a constituent whose name I wish to keep confidential. She asked what she would have to do to make the Government change its mind about the training incentive allowance cuts that have affected her quite badly. I said to her that stories like hers might make the Government change its mind. 
I said I would write to the Minister for Social Development and Employment on the constituent’s behalf and bring her details to the attention of the Minister in order to get some response as to why the decision about the training incentive allowance cuts had been made. But I said that at some stage it would be necessary for the stories to be told publicly in order that we could ensure that we would get the change. In fact I used an example of when I had talked to a Minister from a previous Government and because of personal cases got a change in policy after the policy had been announced. The constituent said she could not put her personal details out there because she was under a protection order. We discussed gathering other names other examples and other stories. 
I have never given any of the information she passed on to me to any member of the media and I did not know that the two individuals concerned about whom the reporter for the  
Herald on Sunday 
 independently of me obtained details were even being interviewed. 
I seek the leave of the House to table an email from Leah Haines which I have received today confirming that that is true. 
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.
Hughes Darren: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Hughes Darren: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:654;Page:3177] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the motion be amended by omitting “3” and substituting “4” 
. Labour rises to speak today to the Government’s decision to establish a special select committee to consider legislation relating to Auckland governance with some sense of irony having just listened to the Leader of the House who 2 days in a row has given a speech that is completely different from the sorts of speeches we were used to him giving when he was an Opposition member. My amendment relates to the entitlement of political parties in this Chamber to be represented on the select committee and I want to address my amendment first of all.
[Volume:654;Page:3157] 
Whether an announcement that an announcement will be made is of sufficient moment to take precedence in the business of the House is certainly an on-balance issue. But that opportunity was lost because the announcement was made on the previous sitting day. Today these have not been on-balance decisions at all. The Standing Orders simply do not provide for an urgent debate today. Of course as has been pointed out there is a general debate now.
Beaumont Carol: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Members 
Beaumont Carol: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Members 
[Volume:654;Page:3156] 
4.  
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill 
: Why did she introduce Supplementary Order Paper 13 on this bill? 
DARIEN FENTON (Member in charge of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill): 
 That Supplementary Order Paper amends the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill to provide for a schedule listing which political parties represented in Parliament support the Act. These provisions follow those in sections 72 and 73 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001. The amendments also require the Minister on introduction into the House of Representatives of a Government bill that proposes an amendment to the Minimum Wage Act to bring to the attention of the House the consultation process that was followed in the formulation of the proposed bill. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Why was it necessary to introduce Supplementary Order Paper 13 on this bill? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Because in the past former Governments have proved to have had no commitment to the minimum wage and action so far from Government parties shows that they still do not. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You pulled up the member earlier for straying well beyond what is reasonable in answering questions to members. I think that the member has breached again quite considerably and should be terminated as an answerer.
Beaumont Carol: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Members 
Beaumont Carol: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Members 
[Volume:654;Page:3156] 
3.  
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill 
: What is the current status of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill? 
DARIEN FENTON (Member in charge of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill): 
 The bill is currently before the Committee of the whole House where the National Party is fighting tooth and nail to try to prevent all New Zealanders from having the right to a minimum remuneration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was totally outside the Standing Orders for an answer of a member in charge of a bill—and she will not do that again. 
Carol Beaumont 
: What further processes is the member expecting the bill to go through? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The bill needs to go through a third reading to be enacted. However I understand that there will be difficulties in getting to that stage.
Hawkins George: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Members 
Hawkins George: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Members 
[Volume:654;Page:3155] 
2.  
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: What is the report-back date for the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee) 
: 
 The report-back date for this bill is 19 June 2009. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Can the chairperson confirm that once the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill has been disposed of by the committee the committee will have an extremely light workload; if not why not? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill incorporates the biggest changes to the Resource Management Act in 20 years. The work on that bill will be completed by the committee and considerable work is under way on processing the consideration of the bill. At the conclusion of that we are conscious that we have a bill on phase 2 of the amendment of the Resource Management Act coming forward. The committee has one member’s bill one private bill and one local bill before it.
Hawkins George: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Members 
Hawkins George: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Members 
[Volume:654;Page:3155] 
1.  
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: Can he confirm that the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is currently being considered by the committee? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: How many more submissions are to be heard on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: From correspondence this morning I understand that one submitter whom we tried to contact by telephone but were unable to is I believe being offered a further opportunity to be heard. Beyond that I think that all submitters have been heard.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Waterview Connection—Statement by Minister of Transport 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Waterview Connection—Statement by Minister of Transport 
[Volume:654;Page:3155] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We could go round and round in circles forever I think. In my short time in this role I have tried to be as accommodating as possible in notifying the Opposition of the Government’s intentions. There has been no such notification of this course of action today. Might I suggest also that when you do watch the replay of question time today you will find you have not been too hard on Trevor Mallard at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable members. I do not think we need to take any further time of the House on this matter. 
Question time resumed.